On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:49:54AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:46:48AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: >> > So, I think this is why implementing freezer as a separate blocking >> > mechanism isn't such a good idea. We're effectively introducing a >> > completely new waiting state to a lot of unsuspecting paths which >> > generates a lot of risks and eventually extra complexity to work >> > around those. I think we really should update freezer to re-use the >> > blocking points we already have - the ones used for signal delivery >> > and ptracing. That way, other code paths don't have to worry about an >> > extra stop state and we can confine most complexities to freezer >> > proper. >> >> Also, consolidating those wait states means that we can solve the >> event-to-response latency problem for all three cases - signal, ptrace >> and freezer, rather than adding separate backing-out strategy for >> freezer. > > Meanwhile, as none of this sounds likely to be done this time > around--are we backing out the new lockdep warnings? > > --b. What if we hide it behind a Kconfig? Its finding real bugs. http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/5/583 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
