Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 schrieben Sie: > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Well, but you did remove sys_sync() from the freezer, which is > > and must be called in the hibernate path. > > That's not really true. We _want_ to call sys_sync() in both the > hibernate and suspend paths (in case the batteries run down), to help > avoid filesystem problems if something goes wrong with the resume. But > it isn't a hard requirement. But the ability to launder pages is needed. During hibernation we need to shrink memory. I don't see how this would be fundamentally different from calling sync. > > > I'm not sure why this can't be made atomic, but assuming, that it > > > can't, fuse should still not need to be implicated. If it is, that's > > > an indication about something wrong in the suspend procedure. > > > > Nope, something's wrong in fuse. You must be able to deal with sync > > until every task is frozen. > > That's ridiculous. FUSE itself runs partially as a user task. How can > you expect it to carry out a sync or anything else when it is frozen? I don't and it might point to a fundamental problem. But I cannot help but notice that syscalls may happen while the system is partially frozen. It must be dealt with. > I suppose you could "deal" with it by having the kernel portion return > an error if the userspace part is frozen. If the hibernate/suspend > code bothered to check the return value, it would immediately abort > the suspend. Where exactly would that code notice the errors? Regards Oliver _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
