On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 08:00:55 PM Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:04:46 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On Friday, May 25, 2012, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>> >> commit b94887bbc0621e1e8402e7f0ec4bc3adf46c9a6e > >> >>> >> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > >> >>> >> Date: Fri Feb 17 12:42:08 2012 -0500 > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Freeze all filesystems during system suspend and (kernel-driven) > >> >>> >> hibernation by calling freeze_supers() for all superblocks and thaw > >> >>> >> them during the subsequent resume with the help of thaw_supers(). > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> This makes filesystems stay in a consistent state in case something > >> >>> >> goes wrong between system suspend (or hibernation) and the subsequent > >> >>> >> resume (e.g. journal replays won't be necessary in those cases). In > >> >>> >> particular, this should help to solve a long-standing issue that, in > >> >>> >> some cases, during resume from hibernation the boot loader causes the > >> >>> >> journal to be replied for the filesystem containing the kernel image > >> >>> >> and/or initrd causing it to become inconsistent with the information > >> >>> >> stored in the hibernation image. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> The user-space-driven hibernation (s2disk) is not covered by this > >> >>> >> change, because the freezing of filesystems prevents s2disk from > >> >>> >> accessing device special files it needs to do its job. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> This change is based on earlier work by Nigel Cunningham. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Rebased to 3.3-rc3 by Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> >>> > >> >>> Did this patch ever wind up going anywhere? Fedora has it sitting in > >> >>> our tree with a comment that says "rebase" and I don't see it in the > >> >>> linux-next tree at all. > >> >>> > >> >>> Did if fall through the cracks or was it NAKed somewhere? > >> >> > >> >> No, it wasn't in principle. There were some comments I haven't addressed yet. > >> > > >> > Dredging up a really old thread, sorry. > >> > > >> > We're still carrying this patch along in Fedora. Should we drop it at > >> > this point, or is it still eventually going to head upstream? > >> > >> Fixed Rafael's email address. (Double sorry.) > > > > No biggie. > > > > I just hadn't got sufficient response for that patch at the time it was > > submitted, so I guess it would be good to resubmit it. Please feel free to > > do that if you want. > > You want me to resend a patch you authored back to you? I mean, I can > do that but it seems a bit strange. All I did was rebase what you > wrote to a newer kernel version. Well, you can send it to me in private then and I'll resubmit. :-) I just don't have any recent version of it handy. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
