From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A042BDB5 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:22:30 +1100 (EST) From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Armando Di Cianno In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:20:53 +1100 Message-Id: <1101162053.13597.136.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev list Subject: Re: Test patch for sleep on Aluminium PowerBooks List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Does this patch do, or should have to do, anything special to > "normalize" the mounted filesystems before sleep? When I patched the > kernel first, I was running XFS, and of course that is notorious for > file corruptions with power abnormalities on a system. I started to > get really odd file corruptions, where 'ls file' would should the > file, but 'ls -l file' would not. I though xfs was supposed to be journaled ? Yes, the sleep code will sync all disks before sleep. You should update to patch #4 though, there have been number of problems fixes since then. > I switched to ReiserFS (v3) now, and have seen symptoms like this > problem caused appear once more (but not to the extent that XFS showed > [where I thought my system was disintegrating before my eyes]). Hrm... reiserfs is evil, ask any sane kernel hacker :) Why not ext3 ? > Is there something that was overlooked in the patch, or something that > I'm overlooking that needs to be done? > > If filesystems do not need to be "normalized" at sleep, what > filesystems are known to work? (Hesistant about ext3, as it's quite > slow, imho, but I'll go that route if needed, I suppose). It's not that slow ... Ben.