On Sat, 12 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Of course, that would also require us to rewrite the freezer itself quite a
> bit, but IMO it's worthy of doing.
>
> Thoughts?
I'd much prefer it. One of the reasons I hate the freezer so much is that
it ends up affecting things it really has no business affecting. Why
should a random kernel thread have to havecode NOT to care? So it makes
much more sense to default to "I don't care about the freezer", and then
people who do care can say so and add their own code.
That said, I also suspect that suspend should depend less on the freezer
in the first place, and depend more on just shutting up specific actions.
The freezer is kind of a blunt instrument that just stops everything,
without actually understanding *what* it stops. As a result (since it
really doesn't know what it's doing), it ends up having all the issues
with "ok, I don't know what I'm doing, but that guy says I shouldn't do
it, so I won't".
Blunt instruments are often _easier_ (compare with the global kernel lock
in SMP), but they end up being very inflexible and hard to get rid of
later when you want to do something more intelligent.
Linus
-
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/
[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]
