Re: [PATCH pm 1/2] usb_storage: don't use set_freezable_with_signal()

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2011, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 05:37:26PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > The current implementation of set_freezable_with_signal() is buggy and
> > tricky to get right.  usb-storage is the only user and its use can be
> > avoided trivially.
> > 
> > All usb-storage wants is to be able to sleep with timeout and get
> > woken up if freezing() becomes true.  This can be trivially
> > implemented by doing interruptible wait w/ freezing() included in the
> > wait condition.  There's no reason to use set_freezable_with_signal().
> > 
> > Perform interruptible wait on freezing() instead of using
> > set_freezable_with_signal(), which is scheduled for removal.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > Cc: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
> > Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
> > ---
> > 
> > These two patches are on top of "freezer: fix various bugs and
> > simplify implementation, take#2" patchset[1] and are also available in
> > the following git branch.
> > 
> >  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/misc.git pm-kill-freezable_with_signal
> > 
> > If usb-storage ppl are okay with it, I think routing this through pm
> > would be the easiest.  Oh, and this definitely is for the next merge
> > window.
> 
> I'm fine with it going that way:
> 	Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>

It's there in my tree already (through the Tejun's pm-freezer branch).

Thanks,
Rafael