Cc: Joseph Fannin <jfannin@...>, Oliver Neukum <oliver@...>, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@...>, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...>, Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...>, <nigel@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-pm@...>
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:08PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote:
What I meant by that was that root is allowed to shoot himself in the
foot. Nothing stops root from opening a swap/hibernate file, which
would put it in cache, and cause it to be inconsistant if a
hibernation image was written to it behind the kernel's back.
That would be a very stupid thing to do, however. There's no reason
to open that file, unless you know *exactly* what you are doing, in
which case the onus is on you to get it right.
But you have a point. The swap file could be very fragmented. It
might often be so, even.
Still, is this better than exporting the kernel's swap internals
(which has never been a public interface before)?
Does it make the interface that writing hibernation images to swap
imposes any better?
Even if hibernation files are no less complicated to support than
hibernating to swap files (which isn't a forgone conclusion) , there
are plenty of reasons writing hibernation images to swap doesn't make
sense.
My point is that no extra work is required to write hibernation images
to dedicated files than to write hibernation images to swap files.
If swap files are to be supported, then, there's no technical reason
not to support dedicated hibernation files. Dedicated hibernation
files are better, and there's no reason not to implement them.
--
Joseph Fannin
jfannin@gmail.com
-
