Hi. On Sunday 22 July 2007 02:13:56 Jeremy Maitin-Shepard 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. > > A larger concern is that it seems that freezing FUSE processes at all > _will_ generate deadlocks if a non-synchronous or memory-map-supporting > filesystem is loopback mounted from a FUSE filesystem. In that case, if > you attempt to sync or free memory once FUSE is frozen, you are sure to > get a deadlock. Ok. So then (in response to Alan too), how about keeping a tree of mounts, akin to the device tree, and working from the deepest nodes up? (In conjunction with what I already suggested)? Regards, Nigel -- See http://www.tuxonice.net for Howtos, FAQs, mailing lists, wiki and bugzilla info.
Attachment:
pgp1PCDyl82sY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations
- From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
- Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations
- References:
- Re: Hibernation considerations
- From: david@lang.hm
- Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations
- From: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>
- Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations
- From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@cmu.edu>
- Re: Hibernation considerations
- Prev by Date: Re: Hibernation considerations
- Next by Date: Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations
- Previous by thread: Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations
- Next by thread: Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations
- Index(es):
![]() |