On Monday, 28 May 2007 23:26, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 20:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 28 May 2007 11:46, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > In reply to your more recent message, I had looked but not tried, so
> > > didn't feel in a position to reply yet.
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2007-05-27 at 00:12 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > 63 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 138 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Well, that looks good, for a start :)
> > >
> > > > Index: linux-2.6.22-rc3/kernel/exit.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux-2.6.22-rc3.orig/kernel/exit.c
> > > > +++ linux-2.6.22-rc3/kernel/exit.c
> > > > @@ -389,6 +389,11 @@ void daemonize(const char *name, ...)
> > > > * they would be locked into memory.
> > > > */
> > > > exit_mm(current);
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * We don't want to have TIF_FREEZE set if the system-wide
> > > > hibernation
> > > > + * or suspend transision begins right now.
> > > > + */
> > > > + current->flags |= PF_NOFREEZE;
> > >
> > > s/transision/transition
> >
> > Thanks, will fix.
> >
> > > > set_special_pids(1, 1);
> > > > proc_clear_tty(current);
> > > > Index: linux-2.6.22-rc3/include/linux/freezer.h
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux-2.6.22-rc3.orig/include/linux/freezer.h
> > > > +++ linux-2.6.22-rc3/include/linux/freezer.h
> > > > @@ -118,6 +118,14 @@ static inline int freezer_should_skip(st
> > > > return !!(p->flags & PF_FREEZER_SKIP);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Tell the freezer that the current task should be frozen by it
> > > > + */
> > > > +static inline void set_freezable(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + current->flags &= ~PF_NOFREEZE;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Given the clearing of the flag above, should we just have a
> > > set_unfreezeable here that's used above (and potentially elsewhere)...
> > > (reads more)... or more generic set_[un]freezeable(task_struct *p)
> > > routines that could also be used in copy_flags below?
> >
> > Yes, I can introduce set_unfreezeable(), although that would be used in
> > a couple of places only.
> >
> > I don't think it's a good idea to have set_[un]freezeable(task_struct *p),
> > since only current is allowed to set/unset its flags.
>
> The copy_flags routine changes another process's flags - that's why I
> was suggesting this.
Yes, it does, but I'm dropping the clearing of PF_NOFREEZE from there,
not adding anything new. :-)
Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
