Hello, Srivatsa.
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 06:19:04PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> So how about solving this problem more fundamentally, such as defining a
> freezable wrapper over kernel_recvmsg like:
>
> #define kernel_recvmsg_freezable(sock, msg, vec, num, size, flags) \
> ({ \
> kernel_recvmsg(sock, msg, vec, num, size, flags) \
> try_to_freeze(); \
> })
>
> and using it instead of kernel_recvmsg(), throughout the kernel?
>
> But kernel_recvmsg is an exported symbol. So if we are very very unwilling
> to change the kernel ABI, we could probably think about adding try_to_freeze()
> inside kernel_recvmsg itself,like this (but see below about my thoughts about
> which one is better):
I don't necessarily object to introducing the wrapper but I don't
really think we should be doing s//g over the source tree without
understanding where it's actually necessary. For kernel threads and
user threads out of the signal delivery path, try_to_freeze() is an
exceptional event which introduces behavior which can be difficult to
reproduce track down and spreading it without actually knowing what
the surrounding code is doing doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
Thank you.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
