This series is a followup to my proposal I brought up on Kernel Summit in Seoul. Noone seemed to had any principal objections, so let's have wider audience look into it. In a nuthsell: freezing of kernel threads is horrible interface with unclear semantics and guarantees, and I am surprised it ever worked properly. Plus there are a lot of places that simply use it in a completely wrong way (which is not suprising, given the lack of defined semantics and requirements). I've tested this over a series of suspend/resume cycles on several machines with at least ext4, btrfs and xfs, and it survived the testing without any harm. Patch 1/3 implements the actual change, and has a more detailed explanation on "why?" and "how?" questions in the changelog Patch 2/3 nukes all (hopefully) the calls to freezer from kthreads in Linus' tree (as of 858e904bd71) Patch 3/3 introduces WARN_ON() if anyone is trying to make use of this again Open questions / discussion points: - is the way I am traversing list of superblocks backwards enough to guarantee correct ordering? Especially: does this work as intended for FUSE? - should freezable workqueues be dealt with the same way? I haven't even started to look into them in a serious way, but it seems like the drivers that are making use of them would actually like to use proper PM callbacks instead -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
