Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH(experimental) 2/2] Fix freezer-kthread_stop race | Date | Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:13:38 +0200 |
| |
On Friday, 20 April 2007 20:31, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > > I mean, we already have four of them (PF_NOFREEZE, PF_FROZEN, > > > > PF_FREEZER_SKIP, TIF_FREEZE), and you will need to introduce two > > > > more for the freezer-based CPU hotplug, so if yet another one is > > > > needed, that will make up almost a separate u8 field ... > > > > > > I am perfectly ok with it. But I am not sure if everybody would > > > agree to have another field in the task struct, though in this case > > > it does make sense :-) > > > > OK by me. You might want to consider making that fields's locking > > protocol be set_bit(), clear_bit(), etc rather than task_lock(). > > is OK to me too, the extra field isnt a problem.
OK, so I'll try to prepare a patch introducing it over the weekend. :-)
Greetings, Rafael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |