From 3a7cbd50f74907580eb47a8d08e1f29741b81abf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tejun Heo Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:32:22 -0800 Subject: freezer: don't unnecessarily set PF_NOFREEZE explicitly Some drivers set PF_NOFREEZE in their kthread functions which is completely unnecessary and racy - some part of freezer code doesn't consider cases where PF_NOFREEZE is set asynchronous to freezer operations. In general, there's no reason to allow setting PF_NOFREEZE explicitly. Remove them and change the documentation to note that setting PF_NOFREEZE directly isn't allowed. -v2: Dropped change to twl4030-irq.c as it no longer uses PF_NOFREEZE. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo Acked-by: "Gustavo F. Padovan" Acked-by: Samuel Ortiz Cc: Marcel Holtmann Cc: wwang --- Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'Documentation/power') diff --git a/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt b/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt index 316c2ba..587e082 100644 --- a/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt +++ b/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ III. Which kernel threads are freezable? Kernel threads are not freezable by default. However, a kernel thread may clear PF_NOFREEZE for itself by calling set_freezable() (the resetting of PF_NOFREEZE -directly is strongly discouraged). From this point it is regarded as freezable +directly is not allowed). From this point it is regarded as freezable and must call try_to_freeze() in a suitable place. IV. Why do we do that? -- cgit v1.1