From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: OGAWA Hirofumi Subject: Re: Regression in suspend to ram in 2.6.31-rc kernels Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:21:56 +0900 Message-ID: <87ljko5k3v.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> References: <200908312119.12121.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090903232317.GA6760@lst.de> <87ljkvmt71.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <87iqfx5mss.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <20090907125130.GA1595@ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail.parknet.ad.jp ([210.171.162.6]:51426 "EHLO mail.officemail.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751003AbZIINVz (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:21:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090907125130.GA1595@ucw.cz> (Pavel Machek's message of "Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:51:30 +0200") Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: Zdenek Kabelac , Christoph Hellwig , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Pavel Machek writes: >> It seems >> >> 1) sync() (probabry "sync" command) >> 2) sync as part of suspend sequence >> 3) sync_filesystem() by mmc remove event >> >> I guess the root-cause of the problem would be 3). However, it would not >> be easy to fix, at least, we would need to think about what we want to >> do for it. So, to workaround it for now, I've made this patch. > > MMC driver trying to synchronize filesystems looks like ugly layering > violation to me. Why are we doing that? There is no _layering violation_ here. IIRC, mmc just tells card removed event to another layer (on some points of view, to tell event can be wrong though). The partition (block) layer does it by event. Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi