lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time

* Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org> wrote:

> We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held. Verified that
> I get no lockdep warnings after applying this patch and
> "vfork: don't freezer_count() for in-kernel users of CLONE_VFORK".
>
> Changes since v1:
> * LKML: <20130215111635.GA26955@gmail.com> Ingo Molnar
> * Added a msg string that gets passed in.
> * LKML: <20130215154449.GD30829@redhat.com> Oleg Nesterov
> * Check PF_NOFREEZE in try_to_freeze().
> Changes since v2:
> * LKML: <20130216170605.GC4910@redhat.com> Oleg Nesterov
> * Avoid unnecessary PF_NOFREEZE check when !CONFIG_LOCKDEP.
> * Mandeep Singh Baines
> * Generalize an exit specific printk.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>
> CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> CC: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> CC: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>

Looks good to me now.

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

Which tree should this go through?

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-20 12:21    [W:0.128 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site