On Saturday, 17 of November 2007, Franck Bui-Huu wrote: > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > However, using PF_NOFREEZE to prevent this from happening doesn't seem to be > > a good idea. > > > > Indeed but... > > > I'd probably use wait_event_freezable() (defined in > > include/linux/freezer.h) for that. > > ...I would just revert this bits from now to make sure this driver > work again for v2.6.24. I'd prefer not to. The PF_NOFREEZE was not present in 2.6.23 already and I wouldn't like to reintroduce it now. Why do you think that using wait_event_freezable() would not work, BTW? > > It tries to send them fake signals and waits for them to freeze. If > > they don't freeze within the timeout, it fails and clears their > > TIF_FREEZE bits. > > But send_fake_signal() seems to wake up task in INTERRUPTIBLE state > only. Looking at signal_wake_up(), it basically do: > > wake_up_state(t, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > > What am I missing ? Nothing. :-) I didn't remember the change that made the freezer use TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE explicitly in there (should have looked at the current code before replying). Greetings, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
