Hi! > > Okay, so you claim that sys_sync can stall, waiting for administator? > > > > In such case we can simply do one sys_sync() before we start freezing > > userspace... or just more the only sys_sync() there. That way, admin > > has chance to unlock his system. > > Well, this is a different story. > > My point is that if we call sys_sync() _anyway_ before calling > freeze_filesystems(), then freeze_filesystems() is _safe_ (either the > sys_sync() blocks, or it doesn't in which case freeze_filesystems() won't > block either). > > This means, however, that we can leave the patch as is (well, with the minor > fix I have already posted), for now, because it doesn't make things worse a > bit, but: > (a) it prevents xfs from being corrupted and I'd really prefer it to be fixed by 'freezeable workqueues'. Can you point me into sources -- which xfs workqueues are problematic? (It would be nice to fix that for 2.6.19, and full bdev freezing looks intrusive to me). > (b) it prevents journaling filesystems in general from replaying journals > after a failing resume. I do not see b) as an useful goal. Pavel -- Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
