[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48DBFD42.6030307@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:06:10 -0400
From: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Takashi Sato <t-sato@...jp.nec.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
"viro@...IV.linux.org.uk" <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"xfs@....sgi.com" <xfs@....sgi.com>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"mtk.manpages@...glemail.com" <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 08:53:37PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
>
>> The timeout feature is added to "freeze ioctl" to solve a deadlock
>> when the freezer accesses a frozen filesystem. And new ioctl
>> to reset the timeout period is added to extend the timeout period.
>> For example, the freezer resets the timeout period to 10 seconds every 5
>> seconds. In this approach, even if the freezer causes a deadlock by
>> accessing the frozen filesystem, it will be solved by the timeout
>> in 10 seconds and the freezer will be able to recognize that
>> at the next reset of timeout period.
>>
>
> And as with all previous posting I still fundamentally disagree about
> the need of this functionality. We don't need a timeout for freezing.
>
>
I agree with Christoph here, I think that the timeout is unneeded.
Regards,
Ric
--
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