Hi Rafael,Aren't NOFREEZE and SKIP doing the same thing? One of them appears superfluous. I'm looking at 21-rc6-mm1 and vfork(2) seems to be its only user. Seeing how vfork(2) used it, can't the call to freezer_do_not_count() be replaced with a call to freezer_exempt()? Similarly, the freezer_count() after the wait_for_completion might just as well be a clear of the NOFREEZE bit followed by a try_to_freeze(). Could you please explain the rationale behind the SKIP flag? I do see that SKIP seems to be relevant for only userspace threads and presumably only kernel threads are allowed to set NOFREEZE, but why this distinction between the two? Also, I do have several gripes against the naming of some of these functions: This could be called task_should_freeze(). This definitely needs to be undo_freeze() or unfreeze(). do_not_freeze() sounds like what freeze_exempt() does. frozen_process() sounds like what frozen() is supposed to do. This could instead be mark_task_frozen(), or even mark_frozen(), because only the current task can ever mark *itself* frozen before freezing itself. These could be called freezer_skip() and freezer_do_not_skip(). Better to stick to consistent naming / terminology. Cheers, Satyam -
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 011/196] sysfs: Fix a copy-n-paste typo in comment |
| Al Boldi | Re: [ck] Re: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu sched... |
| Andrew Morton | 2.6.25-rc8-mm2 |
| Ingo Molnar | Re: [patch] sched_clock(): cleanups |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| John P Poet | Realtek 8111C transmit timed out |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| Kenny Chang | Multicast packet loss |
git: | |
