From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752301Ab3C0LjN (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 07:39:13 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171]:36623 "EHLO mail-ob0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751534Ab3C0LjL (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 07:39:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130326211520.GF2082@quack.suse.cz> References: <514EC323.7050002@gmail.com> <20130326211520.GF2082@quack.suse.cz> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:39:10 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] fsfreeze: moving from uniterruptible to killable From: Marco Stornelli To: Jan Kara Cc: Linux FS Devel , Linux Kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2013/3/26 Jan Kara : > On Sun 24-03-13 10:10:59, Marco Stornelli wrote: >> When a fs is frozen, a process can hang because we wait in >> uniterruptible state. We give the user the possibility to kill the process. > Yes, but it needs slightly more work as you probably know... (bailing out > properly when the signal arrives). > > Honza > Of course, indeed, it was only an RFC to start a discussion, not a patch :) The point was: is this kind of change a behaviour that can break user-space in some way? IMHO no, but I'd like to have a discussion about that before to start coding. What do you think? Marco