On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> OK, more precisely: fs-related threads should not try to process their queues,
> etc., after the snapshot is done, because that may cause some fs data to be
> written at that time and then the fs in question may be corrupted after the
> restore. Not all of the I/O in general, fs data.
But that's not true _either_. That's only true because right now I think
we cannot even suspend to a swapfile (I might be wrong).
If you have a swapfile on a filesystem, you'd need those fs queues
running!
> Well, I'm not sure whether or not that still would have been the case if we had
> stopped to freeze kernel threads for the hibernation/suspend.
Did you miss the email where Paul pointed out that Mac/PowerPC didn't use
to do any of this? And apparently never had any issues with it? And
probably worked more reliably several years ago than suspend/hibernation
does _today_?
Ie we do have history of _not_ freezing things. The freezing came later,
and came with the subsystem that had more problems..
Linus
-
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]
