On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Colin Cross <ccr...@android.com> wrote: >>> >>> There are many other possibilities for other codepaths that end up in >>> wait_for_response(). Once we get a solution in place for NFS, we'll >>> need to do something very similar for CIFS. >> >> Makes sense, I will add CIFS to the patch. Would you prefer it in the >> same or separate patches. > > Quite frankly, is it worth resurrecting these patches at all? > > The only things it actually complained about are not worth the pain > fixing and are getting explicitly not warned about - is there any > reason to believe the patches are worth maintaining and the extra > complexity is worth it?
There was at least one real other case caught when this patch was applied: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/4/390. Tejun asked that I resurrect it because I'm adding some additional APIs similar to freezable_schedule() and he wanted to make sure they didn't get used improperly in the future. -- 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/
