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
next prev parent 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®