On Fri, 8 May 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > My current view on that is that whether or not to do a sync() before > suspending > ultimately is a policy decision and should belong to user space as such > (modulo > the autosleep situation when user space may not know when the suspend is going > to happen). > > Moreover, user space is free to do as many sync()s before suspending as it > wants to and the question here is whether or not the *kernel* should sync() > in the suspend code path. > > Since we pretty much can demonstrate that having just one sync() in there is > not sufficient in general, should we put two of them in there? Or just > remove the existing one and leave it to user space entirely?
I don't know about the advantages of one sync over two. But how about adding a "syncs_before_suspend" (or just "syncs") sysfs attribute that takes a small numeric value? The default can be 0, and the user could set it to 1 or 2 (or higher). Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
