> > Yes, fuse could handle being frozen there. However that would only > > solve part of the problem: an operation waiting for a reply could be > > holding a VFS mutex and some other task may be blocked on that mutex. > > > > How would you solve freezing those tasks? > > OK, you made me reach for literatur on theoretical computer science. > > IMHO the range of actions a fuse server is inherently limited. > You must never ever block on a lock one of your clients is holding. In > this case the limitation is not influenced by the freezer.
Obviously. But I wasn't about the server trying to acquire a lock held by a client. I was talking about a client trying to acquire a lock held by _another_ client. If this coincides with the server (or some other task which the server is depending on) being frozen before the clients, the freezer has a problem. > The freezer introduces a further limitation in that the server can freeze > before the client, which must not be. You can prevent that by freezing > the servers last. > > In principle you might have dependencies between servers and you won't > catch that, true. You won't catch servers blocking on IPC, but you are > balancing on the edge of deadlock with fuse anyway. Huh? Miklos - 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/
