From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 3/3] Freezer: Replace the timeout Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 00:53:04 +0200 Message-ID: <20070805225304.GC30770@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200707251401.48340.rjw@sisk.pl> <200708011243.25276.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070805213728.GA30770@elf.ucw.cz> <200708060038.01938.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200708060038.01938.rjw@sisk.pl> 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: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Nigel Cunningham , Andres Salomon , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Chris Ball , David Woodhouse , Oleg Nesterov List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > Anyway, eventually, I'd like the freezer to detect failures relatively early, > > > so the user won't have to wait 20s each time it's going to fail. > > > > It should not fail ;-). And failures are _really_ rare these days. Is > > 20second wait in case of kernel bug that bad? (FUSE case _is_ a kernel > > bug, I'm just not sure how to solve it. It is still rare.) > > Well, not very bad, but still. Perhaps we should use a progress meter of > some kind to let the user know that something's going on. ;-) Maybe we should move the process freezing to userspace :-))). Wait... that would do the trick. We would blame userspace for FUSE problems, then ;-). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html