[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH pm 1/2] usb_storage: don't use set_freezable_with_signal()
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 05:37:26PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> The current implementation of set_freezable_with_signal() is buggy and
> tricky to get right. usb-storage is the only user and its use can be
> avoided trivially.
> All usb-storage wants is to be able to sleep with timeout and get
> woken up if freezing() becomes true. This can be trivially
> implemented by doing interruptible wait w/ freezing() included in the
> wait condition. There's no reason to use set_freezable_with_signal().
> Perform interruptible wait on freezing() instead of using
> set_freezable_with_signal(), which is scheduled for removal.
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
> Cc: Seth Forshee <>
> Cc: Alan Stern <>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
> ---
> These two patches are on top of "freezer: fix various bugs and
> simplify implementation, take#2" patchset[1] and are also available in
> the following git branch.
> git:// pm-kill-freezable_with_signal
> If usb-storage ppl are okay with it, I think routing this through pm
> would be the easiest. Oh, and this definitely is for the next merge
> window.

I'm fine with it going that way:
Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <>

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-15 02:07    [W:0.064 / U:9.820 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site