On Saturday, 28 April 2007 00:08, Linus Torvalds wrote:Yes. We have a lot less interdependencies to worry about during the whole operation. Well, I don't know if that's a 'coherent' explanation from your point of view (probably not), but I'll try nevertheless: 1) if the kernel threads are frozen, we know that they don't hold any locks that could interfere with the freezing of device drivers, 2) if they are frozen, we know, for example, that they won't call user mode helpers or do similar things, 3) if they are frozen, we know that they won't submit I/O to disks and potentially damage filesystems (suspend2 has much more problems with that than swsusp, but still. And yes, there have been bug reports related to it, so it's not just my fantasy). Probably some other people can say more about it. It is actually useful for some things other than the hibernation/suspend, the code is not idiotic (it's one line of code in the majority of cases) and you should take that "I hate everything even remotely related to hibernation" hat off, really. Greetings, Rafael -
| Srivatsa Vaddagiri | Re: [PATCH, RFC] reimplement flush_workqueue() |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | 2.6.26-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.25 |
| Alexey Dobriyan | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Ilpo Järvinen | Re: [bug] stuck localhost TCP connections, v2.6.26-rc3+ |
git: | |
