Hi. On Sunday 22 July 2007 02:13:56 Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: > It seems that you could still potentially get a failure to freeze if one > FUSE process depends on another, and the one that is frozen second just > happens to be waiting on the one that is frozen first when it is frozen. > I admit that this situation is unlikely, and perhaps acceptable. > > A larger concern is that it seems that freezing FUSE processes at all > _will_ generate deadlocks if a non-synchronous or memory-map-supporting > filesystem is loopback mounted from a FUSE filesystem. In that case, if > you attempt to sync or free memory once FUSE is frozen, you are sure to > get a deadlock. Ok. So then (in response to Alan too), how about keeping a tree of mounts, akin to the device tree, and working from the deepest nodes up? (In conjunction with what I already suggested)? Regards, Nigel -- See http://www.tuxonice.net for Howtos, FAQs, mailing lists, wiki and bugzilla info.
Attachment:
pgpEcxZ6eB6VO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
