On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > No it wont. A process that has notifications to process should do that
> > before being put into the freezer. Only after the notification list is
> > empty will the process be notified and as long as the notification is
> > pending no second notif
(Sorry everyone else for emailing you too. I'm only doing so to honour
the convention of not removing people from replies.)
Hi Christoph.
As I look at the patch in preparation for sending it, I don't think I
really changed anything significant. (I didn't address the issues I
mentioned in the prev
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 12:01, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>
> > Just to let you know that I have it working with Suspend2. One thing I
> > am concerned about is that we still need a way of determining whether a
> > process has been signalled but not y
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Just to let you know that I have it working with Suspend2. One thing I
> am concerned about is that we still need a way of determining whether a
> process has been signalled but not yet frozen. At the moment you just
> check p->todo, but if/when other
Hi.
Just to let you know that I have it working with Suspend2. One thing I
am concerned about is that we still need a way of determining whether a
process has been signalled but not yet frozen. At the moment you just
check p->todo, but if/when other functionality begins to use the todo
list, this
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Well if you want to go this way I can just drop the TIF_FREEZE stuff and
> use the patches-relative-to-mainline.
I would appreciate that.\
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROT
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > > Dont fix it up. Remove the ealier patch.
> >
> > Oops. Do you happen to have patch relative to -mm or something? I'd
> > prefer not to mess it up second time...
>
> Ok. I will make a patch against m
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Dont fix it up. Remove the ealier patch.
>
> Oops. Do you happen to have patch relative to -mm or something? I'd
> prefer not to mess it up second time...
Ok. I will make a patch against mm tomorrow. Patches
are typically against Linus latest and if
Hi!
> > > > Introduce a todo notifier in the task_struct so that a task can be told
> > > > to do
> > > > certain things. Abuse the suspend hooks try_to_freeze, freezing and
> > > > refrigerator
> > > > to establish checkpoints where the todo list is processed. This will
> > > > break software
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > Introduce a todo notifier in the task_struct so that a task can be told
> > > to do
> > > certain things. Abuse the suspend hooks try_to_freeze, freezing and
> > > refrigerator
> > > to establish checkpoints where the todo list is processed
Hi!
> Introduce a todo notifier in the task_struct so that a task can be told to do
> certain things. Abuse the suspend hooks try_to_freeze, freezing and
> refrigerator
> to establish checkpoints where the todo list is processed. This will break
> software
> suspend (next patch fixes and cleans
Hi!
> > Introduce a todo notifier in the task_struct so that a task can be told to
> > do
> > certain things. Abuse the suspend hooks try_to_freeze, freezing and
> > refrigerator
> > to establish checkpoints where the todo list is processed. This will break
> > software
> > suspend (next patch
Introduce a todo notifier in the task_struct so that a task can be told to do
certain things. Abuse the suspend hooks try_to_freeze, freezing and refrigerator
to establish checkpoints where the todo list is processed. This will break
software
suspend (next patch fixes and cleans up software suspen
13 matches
Mail list logo
