From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m8PL57Dw013784 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:05:07 -0700 Received: from mx2.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 3843D1288275 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.redhat.com (mx2.redhat.com [66.187.237.31]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id lSlB368S82QrQcyT for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48DBFD42.6030307@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:06:10 -0400 From: Ric Wheeler MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature References: <20080908205337t-sato@mail.jp.nec.com> <20080908171119.GB22521@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20080908171119.GB22521@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig , Takashi Sato Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" , "axboe@kernel.dk" , "mtk.manpages@googlemail.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 08:53:37PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote: > >> The timeout feature is added to "freeze ioctl" to solve a deadlock >> when the freezer accesses a frozen filesystem. And new ioctl >> to reset the timeout period is added to extend the timeout period. >> For example, the freezer resets the timeout period to 10 seconds every 5 >> seconds. In this approach, even if the freezer causes a deadlock by >> accessing the frozen filesystem, it will be solved by the timeout >> in 10 seconds and the freezer will be able to recognize that >> at the next reset of timeout period. >> > > And as with all previous posting I still fundamentally disagree about > the need of this functionality. We don't need a timeout for freezing. > > I agree with Christoph here, I think that the timeout is unneeded. Regards, Ric