On Saturday, 21 July 2007 20:12, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > It seems that you could still potentially get a failure to freeze if one
> > FUSE process depends on another, and the one that is frozen second just
> > happens to be waiting on the one that is frozen first when it is frozen.
> > I admit that this situation is unlikely, and perhaps acceptable.
>
> It isn't all that unlikely. There's sshfs for example, that depends
> on a separate ssh process for transport.
>
> Oh, there are also userspace network transports, like tun/tap,
> nfqueue, etc. They could block any network filesystem (not just fuse)
> if frozen first, making the freezer fail.
>
> Hmm, wonder why this isn't affecting people with VPNs? Probably
> network mounts over VPN are rare, and ever rarer to have fs activity
> on them during suspend.
>
> Anyway, I think it's long overdue to stop thinking about how to "fix"
> fuse, and concentrate on fixing the underlying problem instead ;)
To conclude this branch of the thread, I have a patch in the works that may
help a bit with unfreezable FUSE filesystems and it only affects the freezer.
I'll post it when 2.6.23-rc1 is out, because it's on top of some other patches
that need to go first.
Greetings,
Rafael
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
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]
