On 09/03, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> @@ -308,24 +308,24 @@ static int freezer_change_state(struct cgroup *cgroup,
> spin_lock_irq(&freezer->lock);
>
> update_if_frozen(cgroup, freezer);
> - if (goal_state == freezer->state)
> - goto out;
> -
> - freezer->state = goal_state;
>
> switch (goal_state) {
> case CGROUP_THAWED:
> - atomic_dec(&system_freezing_cnt);
> + if (freezer->state != CGROUP_THAWED)
> + atomic_dec(&system_freezing_cnt);
> + freezer->state = CGROUP_THAWED;
> unfreeze_cgroup(cgroup, freezer);
> break;
> case CGROUP_FROZEN:
> - atomic_inc(&system_freezing_cnt);
> + if (freezer->state == CGROUP_THAWED)
> + atomic_inc(&system_freezing_cnt);
> + freezer->state = CGROUP_FREEZING;
> retval = try_to_freeze_cgroup(cgroup, freezer);
Cough. Now it doesn't look right to me ;)
If the user write "FROZEN" into the control file, we should not
turn the CGROUP_FROZEN state into CGROUP_FREEZING. Probably this
is harmless, but this looks wrong and this doesn't match the
current behaviour, user-visible change.
Oleg.
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
