On Wed, 11 May 2022 at 11:37, Daniil Lunev <dlunev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > No progress has been made in the past decade with regard to suspend. > > I mainly put that down to lack of interest. > > > That is unfortunate. > > > It is a legitimate operation, but one that is not guaranteed to leave > > the system in a clean state. > Sure, I don't think I can argue about it. The current behaviour is a problem, > however, since there is no other way to ensure the system can suspend > reliably but force unmount - we try normal unmount first and proceed with > force if that fails. Do you think that the approach proposed in this patchset > is a reasonable path to mitigate the issue? At a glance it's a gross hack. I can think of more than one way in which this could be achieved without adding a new field to struct super_block. But... what I'd really prefer is if the underlying issue of fuse vs. suspend was properly addressed instead of adding band-aids. And that takes lots more resources, for sure, and the result is not guaranteed. But you could at least give it a try. Thanks, Miklos
