Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH pm 1/2] usb_storage: don't use set_freezable_with_signal() | Date | Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:34:49 +0100 |
| |
On Tuesday, November 15, 2011, Greg KH wrote: > 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 <tj@kernel.org> > > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> > > Cc: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com> > > Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> > > --- > > > > 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://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/misc.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 <gregkh@suse.de>
It's there in my tree already (through the Tejun's pm-freezer branch).
Thanks, Rafael
| |