Trying to solve the issue I played (on a Aspire One A110, with 9.04 UNR,
and /home on a ext4 partition on a SD card) around with delaying the
resume process by making a pm hook (called /etc/pm/sleep.d/99zleep -> so
really the first hook that should be read on a resume) containing only a
sleep command on thaw|resume. Having a delay of 20 seconds (you have to
start somewhere ;-)), you see a whole lot of messages popping up on the
screen (that I could not find back in my logs actually) and something
odd struck my eye: immediately after resume the kernel finds a new SD
card (instead of recognizing it as the old one) and puts it on
/dev/mmcblk1 (while it was on /dev/mmcblk0). So what dsaxena saw on a
OLPC apparently also happens on our systems.

I decided to unmount the /home before suspend and mount it again after resume, 
by including umount -l /home and mount /home in my 99zleep hook (as mounting 
occurs by UUID it does not matter that the location was switched). If you 
reduce the sleep time to 1 s (on longer times the machine got stuck), it is 
able to resume, however it does not resume your session but starts a new one by 
resuming into the gdm greeter. Making the sleep time shorter (to 0.5 s) the 
behaviour looks better -> resumes your session, however screws up the partition 
table again: so as soon as you want to switch off the system it hangs and on a 
restart the partition table of the SD card is gone again (in some cases it also 
damaged the journal).
I think I need the pause still earlier than I do now (so the SD card is 
recognized as being the same that was already there), has anybody an idea how 
to include a pause at the very beginning of the resume script -> before 
remounting any of the drives?

-- 
SD Card containing /home corrupted on resume
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/342096
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to