On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 00:04 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
> > On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 23:48 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
> > > > On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 21:32 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > > > I'm not sure why this can't be made atomic, but assuming, that it
> > > > > > can't, fuse should still not need to be implicated. If it is,
> > > > > that's
> > > > > > an indication about something wrong in the suspend procedure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope, something's wrong in fuse. You must be able to deal with sync
> > > > > until every task is frozen.
> > > >
> > > > Pipe dream
> > >
> > > Then tell me how you want to avoid that condition.
> >
> > Don't freeze :-)
>
> Then you will have to deal with all syscalls unfrozen tasks can make.
Yup, and the majority of them is totally harmless. Looks like people
around here have a problem with the idea of writing robust drivers ...
Ben.
-
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]
