mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>, Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>,
	Sriram V <vshrirama@gmail.com>,
	Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@drzeus.cx>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Power Management with rootfs on SDMMC.
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 23:10:13 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090103231013.3591d027@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901031306150.3179@localhost.localdomain>

> Well, it goes both ways. You can make a nasty mess right now by suspending 
> and simply not having a working computer when it comes back - all your 
> work being lost.

Yes but these are both symptoms of the same problem.

> they actually get things right is pretty low, though. So I suspect we'd be 
> much better off having sane defaults in the kernel instead.

I don't believe "auto-destroy my music collection" is a sane default...

> So it boils down to the fact that if you have something like / or /home 
> mounted, we really _cannot_ do any better than "assume the user doesn't 
> screw us up".
> 
> A per-filesystem callback to re-verify at resume might be a good idea, but 
> a lot of filesystems cannot reasonably do a lot of verification.

A per file system sync and quiesce is I think also part of the
requirement. Having the file system media consistent but still mounted
before suspending is a good thing anyway (especially with stuff like USB
keys that people do then go and remove post suspend) and you can put the
device into a consistent state and revalidate it *regardless* of the
whether it is / or a music player. What you do if revalidating / fails is
another question ;)

Alan

  reply	other threads:[~2009-01-03 23:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-01-02  6:35 Sriram V
2009-01-02 10:21 ` Andreas Mohr
2009-01-02 11:21   ` Pierre Ossman
2009-01-02 12:21     ` Andreas Mohr
2009-01-02 17:24   ` Pavel Machek
2009-01-03 20:23     ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-03 20:43       ` Pavel Machek
2009-01-03 20:45         ` Alan Cox
2009-01-03 21:16           ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-03 23:10             ` Alan Cox [this message]
2009-01-04  2:59               ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-04 12:04                 ` Alan Cox
2009-01-04 17:53                   ` Linus Torvalds
2009-03-29 16:26     ` Andreas Mohr
2009-04-05 18:45       ` Pierre Ossman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090103231013.3591d027@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=andi@lisas.de \
    --cc=drzeus-list@drzeus.cx \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pavel@suse.cz \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=vshrirama@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®