On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:24:11 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > > > I had a problem with the kernel stopping the machine forever because I got an > > oops while tasks were frozen. It seems to me that we should thaw when this > > happens. How about this approach? > > Well, we do something like this already for the OOM killer (see > oom_killer_disable() and friends), so I think it would be better to > simply extend/modify that mechanism instead of adding a new one > doing almost exactly the same thing. > > I have no complaints about adding thaw_in_oops(), though, so long as > Andrew thinks it makes sense. mm... The patch as proposed is very simple, direct, explicit. I suspect that trying to embed this operation within some other one would end up producing a less clear result. Sometimes we do exceptional and weird things, and leaving the code exceptional and weird-looking is better than hiding it in some framework, if you follow what I mean. It does need some code comments to explain to people what it's doing and more importantly why it's doing it. Also, something which doesn't break the build when CONFIG_FREEZER=n would be nice. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
