Hi, On Tuesday, 5 of April 2005 11:27, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > I have two questions regarding freeze_processes(): > > > > 1) Shouldn't we take the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state into consideration? Now > > we will fail if a process is sleeping when we try to freeze it. > > We can't allow processes to sleep at arbitrary places. Therefore we > send UNINTERRUPTIBLE task a signal, and hope it can get into > refrigerator in time. Hm, AFAIK we can't kill an UNINTERRUPTIBLE process, can we? Which means that we can't deliver a signal to it too ... > > 2) Is it necessary to check p->state == TASK_STOPPED and > > p->state == TASK_TRACED twice in a row (once in freezable() and > > then again in the next if ())? > > Those tests should probably be killed from if() below. As far as I can > see, they can not trigger there. OK, patch follows. :-) Greets, Rafael Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> --- old/kernel/power/process.c 2005-04-05 11:43:56.000000000 +0200 +++ linux-2.6.12-rc2-new/kernel/power/process.c 2005-04-05 11:45:06.000000000 +0200 @@ -70,9 +70,7 @@ int freeze_processes(void) unsigned long flags; if (!freezeable(p)) continue; - if ((p->flags & PF_FROZEN) || - (p->state == TASK_TRACED) || - (p->state == TASK_STOPPED)) + if (p->flags & PF_FROZEN) continue; /* FIXME: smp problem here: we may not access other process' flags -- - Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here? - That depends a good deal on where you want to get to. -- Lewis Carroll "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
