From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:20:15 +1000 Message-ID: <1183497615.3388.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070703042916.GA17240@srcf.ucam.org> <200707032026.34649.oliver@neukum.org> <200707032132.20731.oliver@neukum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200707032132.20731.oliver@neukum.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Oliver Neukum Cc: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, Miklos Szeredi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pavel@ucw.cz, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org 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 Ben.