On 11/22/05, Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> [Please Cc me if you want fast reply.]
>
> > > Swsusp: do not time-out when stopping tasks while resuming
> > >
> > > When stopping tasks during esume process there is no point of
> > > eastablishing a timeout because teh process is past the point
> > > of no return; there is no possible recovery from failure. If
> > > stopping tasks fails resume is aborted and user is forced to
> > > do fsck anyway.
> >
> > If a clueless users voice counts for anything: I couldn't agree more.
> >
> > A failed resume is a near catastrophy if you use and trust swsusp. And
> > how could it ever be useful if you don't?
>
> Failed resume is only as bad as powerfail.
>
So? I don't like powerfails either. Could you please answer this
question - what pros of having resume process time out do you
envision? What problems does it help to solve?
> > Maybe that even would give me a chance to fix some hardware problem
> > causing the timeout, and then retry the resume.
>
> ..while doing resume few times, trying to change hw config to make it
> resume is _way_ more dangerous.
And still we have to do our best to support it. There is USB,
Firewire, Docking station that may appear/disappear while box is
suspended and we absolutely need to support this. Requiring that
hardware configuration has to be frozen between suspend/resume cycles
will not get us far.
--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
