On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 04:39:33PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
quoted text
> > Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 14:07:03 +0000
> > From: Thordur I Bjornsson <bzthib@gmail.com>
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:11:39AM +0000, Thordur I Bjornsson wrote:
> > > Hi gang,
> > 
> >     Gabriel Kihlman spotted a small problem, swd_active was not
> >     being incremented.
> > 
> >     Here's an updated diff.
> 
> Hmm, bufq means that things are quiesced; is that what we want here?
Like owain said, things will get quiesced anyway. And why wouldn't want
to quiesce swap i/o when suspending the machine.

Hm. Actually, I can think of a few problems, but they are not relevant
as this would get quiesced in anycase, just "later".