Hi Oleg, On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03/12, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> >> On 03/12, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> > >> > So yeah, I guess >> > everything could just go into a workqueue. >> >> OK, I'll try to make the patch tomorrow. Should be trivial but it is >> not clear how we should pass "bool force" without allocating the >> work_struct which would be nice to avoid. > > Yes, it would be nice to keep it simple and use a single work/arg. > > Could you review? The change is trivial but > > - orderly_poweroff() always return 0. > > - the patch assumes that orderly_poweroff(false) after > orderly_poweroff(true) acts as "force = true". Only xen > uses "false", I hope this is fine. > > In fact I think we can change poweroff_force argument > unconditionally, this "if (force)" check is mostly > documentation.
I'm not so familiar with this code, but for me it looks reasonable to let orderly_poweroff(true) win even if there's an orderly_poweroff(false) later. > > But we can add the locking or even allocate work_struct > every time if this is wrong (or just looks wrong). > > - The patch assumes that orderly_poweroff() doesn't need > the keventd_up() check, I hope this is correct... > > > Lucas, Andrew, sorry. If this patch will be applied, then > > kernel-sysc-use-the-simpler-call_usermodehelper.patch No problem for me... your patch already does what this one is doing. Lucas De Marchi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
