Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:37:19 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |