Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex

Ar Iau, 2006-11-09 am 22:17 +0100, ysgrifennodd Pavel Machek:
> Why not simply &~ PF_NOFREEZE on that particular process? Filesystems
> are free to use threads/work queues/whatever, but refrigerator should
> mean "no writes to filesystem" for them...

You can't go around altering the flags of another process - what locking
are you relying upon for this ?


-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
    • From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
    • From: Alasdair G Kergon <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
    • From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
    • From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
    • From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
    • From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch 11/19] i386: Rework local APIC calibration
• Next by Date: hostap_cs_{resume,suspend}(): inconsequent NULL checking
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]