Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:36:10 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Suspend 2 merge: 21/51: Refrigerator upgrade. |
| |
Hi!
> > > Included in this patch is a new try_to_freeze() macro Andrew M suggested > > > a while back. The refrigerator declarations are put in sched.h to save > > > extra includes of suspend.h. > > > > try_to_freeze looks nice. Could we get it in after 2.6.10 opens? > > I'm hoping to get the whole thing in mm once all these replies are dealt > with. Does that sound unrealistic?
Yes, a little ;-).
> > > */ > > > int fsync_super(struct super_block *sb) > > > { > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + /* A safety net. During suspend, we might overwrite > > > + * memory containing filesystem info. We don't then > > > + * want to sync it to disk. */ > > > + if (unlikely(test_suspend_state(SUSPEND_DISABLE_SYNCING))) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > > If it is safety net, do BUG_ON(). > > Could get triggered by user pressing SysRq. (Or via a panic?). I don't > think the SysRq should result in a panic; nor should a panic result in a > recursive call to panic (although I'm wondering here, wasn't the call to > syncing in panic taken out?).
Silently doing nothing when user asked for sync is not nice, either. BUG() is better solution than that. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |