> 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. Can you advise what would be a better way to achieve that? > 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. We do have a limited success with userspace level sequencing of processes, but on the kernel level - it is all quite untrivial, as you mentioned. I did some research, and what I found pretty much a 9 years old thread which went nowhere at the end [1]. We would also prefer if suspend just worked (and we have a person looking into what is actually breaking with suspend), but there is an unbounded amount of time for how long the investigation and search for a solution may be ongoing given the complexity of the problem, and in the meantime there is no way to work around the problem. Thanks, Daniil [1] https://linux-kernel.vger.kernel.narkive.com/UeBWfN1V/patch-fuse-make-fuse-daemon-frozen-along-with-kernel-threads
