Hi Linus.

On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 19:10 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted text
>=20
> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> >=20
> > First, let me agree with you that for the atomic copy itself, the
> > freezer is unnecessary. Disabling irqs and so on is enough to ensure th=
e
quoted text
> > atomic copy is atomic. I don't think any of us are arguing with you
> > there.
>=20
> First off, realize that the problem actually happens during=20
> suspend-to-ram.
>=20
> Think about that for a second.
>=20
> In fact, think about it for a _loong_ time. Because dammit, people seem t=
o=20
quoted text
> have a really hard time even realizing this.
>=20
> 	There is no "atomic copy".
>=20
> 	There is no "checkpointing".
>=20
> 	There is no "spoon".
>=20
> > Hope this helps.
>=20
> Hope _the_above_ helps. Why is it so hard for people to accept that=20
> suspend-to-ram shouldn't break because of some IDIOTIC issues with disk=20
> snapshots?
>=20
> And why do you people _always_ keep mixing the two up?

It does. Sorry. I didn't read enough of the context.

To answer the question, I guess the answer is that although they're
different creatures, they have similarities. This is one of them, which
is why I could make the mistake I did. Nothing in the issue being
discussed was unique to suspend-to-ram. Perhaps we (or at least I) focus
too much on the similarities, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

Regards,

Nigel