On Friday 18 September 2009, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Saturday 12 September 2009, Chris Ball wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> > Well system could check basic card ids if they match after resume > >> > >> No. That (arguably) guarantees that it's the same card, but not that > >> it wasn't modified in another machine during the suspend. > > > > Generally speaking, we'd also need to check superblocks for this to work. > > > >> > if some users wants to crash his card by randomly swapping it > >> > during suspend/resume - I'd have no problem with that.... > >> > >> You should have a problem with it. Taking a card from a suspended > >> machine and working on it with a different machine is not a bizarre > >> thing to want to do. > > > > Agreed. > > Um... > > What happen if we moved remove event to resume sequence? I.e. The > resume generates remove and insert event (or such revalidate). With > this, I hope the suspend is not bothered by complex one, and the resume > just ignores (if needed) previous state and notify it to userland by > remove/insert event. > > And, userland process should unmount for removal devices before suspend > process (as part of userland preparation)? > > If we assumed the removable device can be changed before resume, fs > would need to recover process, to make sure in-core and on-disk state > has consistent. > > Um..., for now, I feel the umount before suspend is only safe way. Yes, with the current design it's the only really safe way. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
