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]>
- Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
- 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]>
- [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
- 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):
 |