On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:17, Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:37:26AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > > > Hmm ..good point. So can we assume that disable/enable_nonboot_cpus() are > > called > > with processes frozen already? > > > > Gautham, you need to take this into account in your patchset! > > Yup. That would mean making the freezer reentrant since we will > be freezing twice (once for suspend and later on for hotplug). This is > ok since the api in my patches looks like > freeze_processes(int freeze_event); > > But thaw will be interesting. If we are thawing for hotplug, we gotta > only thaw processes which were frozen *only* for hotplug. > > Rafael, does that mean more status flags?!
Well, I don't really think so, but we need to store some information in the freezer (eg. in a status variable). Namely, we can define a variable, say tasks_frozen, the value of which will be the bitwise or of the flags SPE_SUSPEND, SPE_HOTPLUG etc. In a fully functional system, tasks_frozen is equal to zero. If freeze_processes(SPE_SUSPEND) is run, it does tasks_frozen |= SPE_SUSPEND and analogously for SPE_HOTPLUG etc. If tasks_frozen is equal to SPE_SUSPEND|SPE_HOTPLUG, for example, and thaw_tasks(SPE_HOTPLUG) runs, it only thaws the tasks that need not stay frozen for the suspend and does tasks_frozen &= ~SPE_SUSPEND etc. I think something like this should work. Greetings, Rafael - 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/
