From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: Re: Hotplug events during sleep transition Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:54:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20051225195410.GA1864@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200512251152.23242.dtor_core@ameritech.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200512251152.23242.dtor_core@ameritech.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Linux-pm mailing list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Ne 25-12-05 11:52:21, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Sunday 25 December 2005 11:43, Alan Stern wrote: > > > It is not *that* bad, actually. In system suspend/resume cases, no = new > > > I/O requests can happen, because userspace is frozen. Because of > > > runtime suspend, you should handle I/O errors properly, but you sho= uld > > > handle I/O errors properly, anyway, so... looks like a solution to = me. > >=20 > > You're right, it's not really all that bad. =A0Note however that in t= he PPC > > implementation, Ben H. does not freeze userspace before suspend to RA= M. > >=20 >=20 > Do we freeze processes before STR on i386? Yes. Pavel --=20 Thanks, Sharp!