Hello, Michal.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 07:58:49PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Also change the return value semantic as the current one is little bit
> awkward. There is just one caller (try_to_freeze_tasks) which checks
> the return value and it is only interested whether the request was
> successful or the task blocks the freezing progress. It is natural to
> reflect the success by true rather than false.
I don't know about this. It's also customary to return %true when
further action needs to be taken. I don't think either is
particularly wrong but the flip seems gratuitous.
> bool freeze_task(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> @@ -129,12 +130,20 @@ bool freeze_task(struct task_struct *p)
> * normally.
> */
> if (freezer_should_skip(p))
> + return true;
> +
> + /*
> + * Do not check freezing state or attempt to freeze a task
> + * which has been killed by OOM killer. We are just waiting
> + * for the task to wake up and die.
Maybe saying sth like "consider the task freezing as ...." is a
clearer way to put it?
> + */
> + if (!test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE))
> return false;
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>