Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time | Date | Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:55:49 +0100 |
| |
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:37:19 AM Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org> wrote: > > > We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held. Verified that > > I get no lockdep warnings after applying this patch and > > "vfork: don't freezer_count() for in-kernel users of CLONE_VFORK". > > > > Changes since v1: > > * LKML: <20130215111635.GA26955@gmail.com> Ingo Molnar > > * Added a msg string that gets passed in. > > * LKML: <20130215154449.GD30829@redhat.com> Oleg Nesterov > > * Check PF_NOFREEZE in try_to_freeze(). > > Changes since v2: > > * LKML: <20130216170605.GC4910@redhat.com> Oleg Nesterov > > * Avoid unnecessary PF_NOFREEZE check when !CONFIG_LOCKDEP. > > * Mandeep Singh Baines > > * Generalize an exit specific printk. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org> > > CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> > > CC: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > > CC: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> > > CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> > > Looks good to me now. > > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > > Which tree should this go through?
Well, I can take it if that's OK.
Thanks, Rafael
-- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
| |