Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations

Alan Stern
2007-07-20T16:51:10Z

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 david@lang.hm wrote:

> or the userspace helper functions that setup the instructions for the
> hibernate warn you if you are telling it to mount a filesystem that it
> knows is ext3 and is in use by the system going to sleep.

One can argue that the ext3 implementation is inadequate. We should be
able to give it a mount option requiring it to fail rather than play
back the journal and write to the disk.

> > What I've been trying to say from the very beginning is that the current
> > frameworks _support_ hibernation a la ACPI S4 (although that's not exactly
> > ACPI S4) and if we are going to introduce a new framework, then it should
> > be designed to _support_ ACPI S4 fully _from_ _the_ _start_.
>
> here is where there is some disagreement (although it may just be
> misunderstanding on the 'fully support' phrase)
>
> it sounds like you are saying that the ACPI support requires a lot of work
> (the phrase I've seen some people use is a requirement to 'fix all the
> drivers'). we aren't wanting to have this work prevent the non-ACPI
> hibernation from progressing.

You have completely misunderstood. That phrase "fix all the drivers"
has nothing whatsoever to do with ACPI. It is a prerequisite for
removing the freezer.

And unless I'm mistaken, removing the freezer was the main reason for
doing all this kexec-style work in the first place.

Alan Stern