On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 00:04 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt: > > On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 23:48 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt: > > > > On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 21:32 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Pipe dream > > > > > > Then tell me how you want to avoid that condition. > > > > Don't freeze :-) > > Then you will have to deal with all syscalls unfrozen tasks can make. Yup, and the majority of them is totally harmless. Looks like people around here have a problem with the idea of writing robust drivers ... Ben. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
