Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > > 3) trying to treat uninterruptible tasks as non-freezeable should better
> > > be avoided (I tried to implement this in swsusp last year but it caused
> > > vigorous opposition to appear, and it was not Pavel ;-))
> > 
> > I'm not suggesting treating them as unfreezeable in the fullest sense. I 
> > still signal them, but don't mind if they don't respond. This way, if they 
> > do leave that state for some reason (timeout?) at some point, they still 
> > get frozen.
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what I wanted to do in swsusp. ;-)

It seems dangerous to me. Imagine you treated interruptible tasks like
that...

What prevent task from doing

	set_state(UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
	schedule(one hour);
	write_to_filesystem();
	handle_signal()?

I.e. it may do something dangerous just before being catched by
refrigerator.
								Pavel
-- 
Thanks, Sharp!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/