Re: [PATCH 1/2] freezer: add unsafe versions of freezable helpers

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> NFS calls the freezable helpers with locks held, which is unsafe
> and caused lockdep warnings when 6aa9707 "lockdep: check that no
> locks held at freeze time" was applied (reverted in dbf520a).
> Add new *_unsafe versions of the helpers that will not run the
> lockdep test when 6aa9707 is reapplied, and call them from NFS.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Looks mostly good.

> @@ -152,6 +169,14 @@ static inline bool freezer_should_skip(struct task_struct *p)
>  	freezer_count();						\
>  })
>  
> +/* DO NOT ADD ANY NEW CALLERS OF THIS FUNCTION */
> +#define freezable_schedule_unsafe()					\
> +({									\
> +	freezer_do_not_count();						\
> +	schedule();							\
> +	freezer_count_unsafe();						\
> +})
> +

Make it inline function? :-). Add short explanation why it is good
idea?

> +/* DO NOT ADD ANY NEW CALLERS OF THIS FUNCTION */
> +#define freezable_schedule_timeout_killable_unsafe(timeout)		\
> +({									\
> +	long __retval;							\
> +	freezer_do_not_count();						\
> +	__retval = schedule_timeout_killable(timeout);			\
> +	freezer_count_unsafe();						\
> +	__retval;							\
> +})

Function too?
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/