On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 01:19, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:55, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 04/24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Should I clear it in dup_task_struct() or is there a better place?
> > >
> > > I persona
On 04/24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:55, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 04/24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > Should I clear it in dup_task_struct() or is there a better place?
> >
> > I personally think we should do this in dup_task_struct(). In fact, I
> > beli
On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:55, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Should I clear it in dup_task_struct() or is there a better place?
>
> I personally think we should do this in dup_task_struct(). In fact, I believe
> it is better to replace the
>
> *tsk = *o
On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:41, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 12:40:17AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 04/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Move all of the freezer-related flags to a separate field
On 04/24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Should I clear it in dup_task_struct() or is there a better place?
I personally think we should do this in dup_task_struct(). In fact, I believe
it is better to replace the
*tsk = *orig;
with some helper (like setup_thread_stack() below), and that h
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 12:40:17AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 04/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > Move all of the freezer-related flags to a separate field in task_struct
> > > and
> > > introduce functions to operate the
On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Move all of the freezer-related flags to a separate field in task_struct and
> > introduce functions to operate them using set_bit() etc.
> >
> > [...snip...]
> >
> > --- linux-2.6.21-rc6-mm1.orig/ke
On 04/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Move all of the freezer-related flags to a separate field in task_struct and
> introduce functions to operate them using set_bit() etc.
>
> [...snip...]
>
> --- linux-2.6.21-rc6-mm1.orig/kernel/fork.c 2007-04-22 19:37:42.0
> +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.2
On Monday, 23 April 2007 15:17, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:39:26PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > @@ -63,9 +100,9 @@ static inline int thaw_process(struct ta
> > */
> > static inline void frozen_process(struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > - p->flags |= PF_FROZEN;
>
On Monday, 23 April 2007 16:19, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> Hi Satyam,
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:39:30AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > >+/*
> > >+ * Per task flags used by the freezer
> > >+ *
> > >+ * They should not be referred to directly outside of this file.
> >
Hi,
On Monday, 23 April 2007 06:09, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
[--snip--]
>
> Also, I do have several gripes against the naming of some of these functions:
>
> > static inline int freezing(struct task_struct *p)
>
> This could be called task_should_freeze().
>
> > /*
> > - * Someti
Hi Satyam,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:39:30AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> >+/*
> >+ * Per task flags used by the freezer
> >+ *
> >+ * They should not be referred to directly outside of this file.
> >+ */
> >+#define TFF_NOFREEZE 0 /* task should not be frozen */
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:39:26PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> @@ -63,9 +100,9 @@ static inline int thaw_process(struct ta
> */
> static inline void frozen_process(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> - p->flags |= PF_FROZEN;
> + set_frozen_flag(p);
> wmb();
> - clear_tsk_thread
Hi!
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Move all of the freezer-related flags to a separate field in task_struct and
> introduce functions to operate them using set_bit() etc.
Looks sane to me.
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
(english) http://www.livejo
Hi Rafael,
+/*
+ * Per task flags used by the freezer
+ *
+ * They should not be referred to directly outside of this file.
+ */
+#define TFF_NOFREEZE 0 /* task should not be frozen */
+#define TFF_FREEZE 8 /* task should go to the refrigerator ASAP */
+#define TFF_SKIP
On 4/23/07, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One more question - why would I want to do this?
Check out the FAQ in Documentation/power/swsusp.txt.
Is this like something that would be useful on a laptop, to suspend
activity and reduce battery drain, while preserving the current state
o
Rafael wrote:
> I'll try to explain how it works.
Ok - thanks. Good explanation of how it works.
One more question - why would I want to do this?
Is this like something that would be useful on a laptop, to suspend
activity and reduce battery drain, while preserving the current state
of ones ses
On Sunday, 22 April 2007 23:14, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Rafael wrote:
> > Move all of the freezer-related flags to a separate field in task_struct and
> > introduce functions to operate them using set_bit() etc.
>
> It's getting time I learned what this freezer thing is.
>
> What would you suggest
Rafael wrote:
> Move all of the freezer-related flags to a separate field in task_struct and
> introduce functions to operate them using set_bit() etc.
It's getting time I learned what this freezer thing is.
What would you suggest I read?
I looked in include/linux/freezer.h and didn't see any ex
19 matches
Mail list logo
