Cc: Romano Giannetti <romanol@...>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>, <stable@...>, Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...>, Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@...>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@...>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...>, Dave Jones <davej@...>, Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...>, Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...>, Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...>, <akpm@...>, <alan@...>, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...>
No they won't.
Why the HELL cannot you realize that kernel threads are different?
The right thing to do is AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN, to stop and start user
threads only around the whole thing.
Don't touch those kernel threads. Stop freezing them.
Then, what you do is:
- stop user space
- suspend
- resume
- start user space
and at no point do you touch any kernel threads.
And yes, that "resume" part is multi-phase. We already have
"resume_early()" to do bus-level setup, and then "resume()" to do the
"make devices work". I was suggesting adding a "resume_late()" phase to
let the devices do things that require other devices to work, like doing
firmware loading.
But stopping kernel threads is STUPID. As long as we continue to do that,
it will never _ever_ work.
Yeah, we could re-start the kernel thread before "resume_late()", but the
fact is, they shouldn't have been stopped in the first place.
Linus
-
