From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 21:32:20 +0200 Message-ID: <200707032132.20731.oliver@neukum.org> References: <20070703042916.GA17240@srcf.ucam.org> <200707032026.34649.oliver@neukum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline 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: Miklos Szeredi Cc: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pavel@ucw.cz, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 schrieb Miklos Szeredi: > > And a further question. The freezer is not atomic. What do you do > > if a task not yet frozen calls sys_sync(), but fuse is already frozen? > > What do you do if a task not yet frozen writes to a pipe, on the other > end of which is a task already frozen? The same as you do with a pipe when the reader is not ready. > It doesn't matter. The only thing that should matter during suspend > (not hibernate) is saving the state of devices to ram, and putting the > devices to sleep. Well, but you did remove sys_sync() from the freezer, which is and must be called in the hibernate path. > 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. Regards Oliver