[linux-pm] [PATCH 02/10] windfarm: dont die on suspend thread signal

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:30:29 +0100
Johannes Berg <johannes at sipsolutions.net> wrote:

> When the windfarm thread gets a suspend signal it will die instead of
> freezing. This fixes it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes at sipsolutions.net>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at osdl.org>
> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel.crashing.org>
> 
> ---
> Please apply to -mm.
> 
> --- mb-wireless.orig/drivers/macintosh/windfarm_core.c	2007-02-05 14:24:06.344526864 +0100
> +++ mb-wireless/drivers/macintosh/windfarm_core.c	2007-02-05 14:24:38.264526864 +0100
> @@ -94,8 +94,6 @@ static int wf_thread_func(void *data)
>  	DBG("wf: thread started\n");
>  
>  	while(!kthread_should_stop()) {
> -		try_to_freeze();
> -
>  		if (time_after_eq(jiffies, next)) {
>  			wf_notify(WF_EVENT_TICK, NULL);
>  			if (wf_overtemp) {
> @@ -118,8 +116,8 @@ static int wf_thread_func(void *data)
>  		if (delay <= HZ)
>  			schedule_timeout_interruptible(delay);
>  
> -		/* there should be no signal, but oh well */
> -		if (signal_pending(current)) {
> +		/* there should be no non-suspend signal, but oh well */
> +		if (signal_pending(current) && !try_to_freeze()) {
>  			printk(KERN_WARNING "windfarm: thread got sigl !\n");
>  			break;
>  		}
> 
> --

That sounds like a fairly irritating feature.  Should we backport this into 2.6.20?


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux