From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 18:02:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20070703170233.GA25129@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20070703160526.GA24334@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Alan Stern Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:57:17PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:03:33PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > Quite apart from the sync() matter, _any_ synchronous call to a FUSE > > > filesystem during STR will cause trouble. Even if the user task > > > implementing the filesystem isn't frozen, when it tries to carry out > > > some I/O to a suspended device it will either: > > > > > > block until the system wakes up, or > > > > For the suspend to RAM case, that sounds absolutely fine. > > It's not so good when your suspend process has to wait for the call to > complete! Why would it have to? Sorry, I suspect I'm missing something obvious here. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org