[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a9wma70f.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:58:24 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Feng Hong <hongfeng@...vell.com>
Cc: "akpm\@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"gorcunov\@openvz.org" <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
"keescook\@chromium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"serge.hallyn\@canonical.com" <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] poweroff: fix bug in orderly_poweroff
Feng Hong <hongfeng@...vell.com> writes:
> Hi, Eric
>
> 1. We are developing on an Android phone platform, we use thermal
> framework to monitor the temperature, when the temperature above like
> 110 degree, thermal framework will use orderly_shutdown to shutdown
> phone, however, on Android platform there is no " /sbin/poweroff " cmd
> ready . Then we want "fail ret" to trigger force shutdown (use
> kernel_power_off), but always we get "suc ret"
> 2. Here the caller just wait for "poweroff" userspace application, if
> it block the called, then it's the "poweroff" problem itself
> 3. As in the original orderly_shutdown design, we must get the right
> "ret", if this ret is always "0", then it obey orderly_poweroff design
> goal. Step 2: force shutdown is always useless code.
That sounds like a clear case that we need to change it to
UMH_WAIT_EXEC.
Changing it to UMH_WAIT_PROC seems much more dangerous.
Eric
--
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