[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070420103052.686f3c71.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:30:52 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: ego@...ibm.com
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, vatsa@...ibm.com,
paulmck@...ibm.com, pavel@....cz
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH(experimental) 2/2] Fix freezer-kthread_stop race
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:56:09 +0530
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com> 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().
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists