Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...>, <nigel@...>, Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-pm@...>, Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...>
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
The ext3 thing is a bug, the case for which I don't think has been
adequately explained to the ext[34] folks. There should be at least a
no_replay mount flag available, or something. It has ramifications
for more than just hibernation.
And yeah, I'm gonna bring up the swap files thing again. If you
can hibernate to a swap file, you can hibernate to a dedicated
hibernation file, and vice versa.
If you can't hibernate to a swap file, then swap files are
effectively unsupported for any system you might want to hibernate.
<handwave> I wonder what embedded folks would think about that
</handwave>.
But, in my ignorance, I'm not sure even fixing the ext3 bug will
guarantee you consistent metadata so that you can handle a
swap/hibernate file. You can do a sync(), but how do you make that
not race against running processes without the freezer, or blkdev
snapshots?
I guess uswsusp and the-patch-previously-known-as-suspend2 handle
this somehow, though.
(It's that same ignorance that has me waiting for someone with
established credit with kernel people to make that argument for the
ext3 bug, so I can hang my own reasons for thinking that it's bad off
of theirs).
--
Joseph Fannin
jfannin@gmail.com
-