[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANGUGtDdhbS-7GJ4HDRTN3H-bHvNLGg6tdNsqgZbMGBCxmjjcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:41:02 +0100
From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] fsfreeze: moving from uniterruptible to killable
2013/3/27 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>:
> On Wed 27-03-13 12:39:10, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>> 2013/3/26 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>:
>> > On Sun 24-03-13 10:10:59, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>> >> When a fs is frozen, a process can hang because we wait in
>> >> uniterruptible state. We give the user the possibility to kill the process.
>> > Yes, but it needs slightly more work as you probably know... (bailing out
>> > properly when the signal arrives).
>> >
>> > Honza
>> >
>>
>> Of course, indeed, it was only an RFC to start a discussion, not a
>> patch :) The point was: is this kind of change a behaviour that can
>> break user-space in some way? IMHO no, but I'd like to have a
>> discussion about that before to start coding. What do you think?
> Killable wait is almost always safe WRT to userspace breakage. In this
> case I cannot see how it could matter. That's why I agree it's a good thing
> to do.
>
> Honza
Yes, I quite agree. I'll try to look at it in a deeply way.
Regards,
Marco
--
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