On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
quoted text
> 
> OK, more precisely: fs-related threads should not try to process their queues,
> etc., after the snapshot is done, because that may cause some fs data to be
> written at that time and then the fs in question may be corrupted after the
> restore.  Not all of the I/O in general, fs data.

But that's not true _either_. That's only true because right now I think 
we cannot even suspend to a swapfile (I might be wrong). 

If you have a swapfile on a filesystem, you'd need those fs queues 
running!

quoted text
> Well, I'm not sure whether or not that still would have been the case if we had
> stopped to freeze kernel threads for the hibernation/suspend.

Did you miss the email where Paul pointed out that Mac/PowerPC didn't use 
to do any of this? And apparently never had any issues with it? And 
probably worked more reliably several years ago than suspend/hibernation 
does _today_?

Ie we do have history of _not_ freezing things.  The freezing came later, 
and came with the subsystem that had more problems..

		Linus
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/