On Wed, 30 May 2007, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 10:19 -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > > > > How about blocking brk() and mmap(MAP_ANONYMOUS) in addition to > > the filesystem VFS callers? Or is that starting to get messy again? > > Yeah. Getting messy again :) Indeed. And also misses the point - the point being that we don't actually need to freeze anything at all most of the time. There's nothing wrong with making memory allocations etc. And yes, suspend is different from hibernate. I can see how hibernate people are worried about people writing to things after doing the snapshot, but those concerns don't exist with suspend. With suspend, the biggest concern is accessing a device after it has been suspended, but on the other hand, also the fact that we end up having driver writers used to the system being "runnable", so they do things that really do require a full-fledged system (and sometimes that means just some delayed action using a kernel thread, other times it seems to rely on more complex behaviour like firmware loading :^p ) 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- References:
- Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Romano Giannetti <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>
- Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] use printk.time option, drop time/notime
- Next by Date: [PATCH] Trivial fixes on comments related old shrink_list reference
- Previous by thread: Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- Next by thread: Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
- Index(es):
 |