On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:17:21PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote: > > And I *hope* the lockdep annotation is stricter than what was added > > before. I think it better be "no lock ever should be held at this > > point" rather than "consider this a big lock". > > The previous patch (6aa9707099c4b25700940eb3d016f16c4434360d in Linus' > tree) already required that no locks be held, it wasn't using a lock > annotation.
Ooh, cool. Thanks for the pointer. Forget about my rambling and let's just add an unsafe version of try_to_freeze() and be done with it. :) -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
