On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 04:39:33PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 14:07:03 +0000 > > From: Thordur I Bjornsson <bzt...@gmail.com> > > > > On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:11:39AM +0000, Thordur I Bjornsson wrote: > > > Hi gang, > > > > Gabriel Kihlman spotted a small problem, swd_active was not > > being incremented. > > > > Here's an updated diff. > > Hmm, bufq means that things are quiesced; is that what we want here? Like owain said, things will get quiesced anyway. And why wouldn't want to quiesce swap i/o when suspending the machine.
Hm. Actually, I can think of a few problems, but they are not relevant as this would get quiesced in anycase, just "later".
