Hello, On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 07:15:17PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > I guess it depends on the viewpoint. A simple analogy would be using > > WARN_ON_ONCE() instead of BUG_ON() so that the mode of failure is > > softer. This change isn't likely to make bugs significantly more > > difficult to discover so why not? > > I agree either way. > > Personally I prefer your current patch. Because it is not clear why > do we call try_to_freeze_cgroup() if it was already called. And, the > 2nd call can silently hide the problem if we have some bug. > > But of course, this is up to you and Matt. I'm okay either way too. It would make a bug in that area a bit less annoying and thus may decrease the chance of bug report, but it means that we ship with built-in easy work around (if it doesn't work at the first kick, kick again), which can be beneficial in practice. > > > But I agree either way. Rafael, I think 1-4 are fine, but I think > > > we need the simple 5/4, will send in a minute... > > > > Can you please wait a bit? The second one was broken (missing unlock) > > Yes, I just noticed the small problem too, hopefully we mean the same > bug ;) Yeap, the same one. I thought it was the second patch instead of the third. :) Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
