On Tuesday, 29 May 2007 14:48, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Well.. it can write anywhere it wants (filesystem or not) as long as > > > the system is not going to be confused after resume by its caches not > > > matching on-disk state. I'd prefer it not to write anywhere at all. > > > > OK > > > > Please have a look at the current version of the patch (appended). > > > > I have followed the Nigel's suggestion not to change the current behavior > > in this patch (I'll add a couple of patches removing the freezability from > > some kernel threads), with one exception: I couldn't figure out any reason > > to have try_to_freeze() called in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:svc_recv() . > > It probably broke suspend at some point... leave it there. Processes > can stay in D period, waiting for NFS server to come back. > > and yes, we want nfs threads frozen, too (and anything that talks to > network). Speaking to nfs servers while we are suspending the machine > is not nice, and if that continues after snapshot, we'll act as a very > confused machine to the outside...
OK, I've added set_freezable() to the NFS-related threads. [Updated patch is in the reply to Nigel.] Greetings, Rafael - 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/
