lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time
Date
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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-20 14:21    [W:0.116 / U:0.744 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site