| To: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:12:17 +1000 |
| Cc: | Elias Oltmanns <eo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@xxxxxxx>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20080626150910.GK5642@ucw.cz> |
| Mail-followup-to: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, Elias Oltmanns <eo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@xxxxxxx>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <4744FD87.7010301@goop.org> <200711262253.35420.rjw@sisk.pl> <20071127053846.GA28884@srcf.ucam.org> <200711271840.24825.rjw@sisk.pl> <8B00F353-983F-40E7-931B-EA73CCD32F0A@mac.com> <20080623071601.GA1553@elf.ucw.cz> <20080623140012.GA11899@khazad-dum.debian.net> <87od5rs1am.fsf@denkblock.local> <20080626150910.GK5642@ucw.cz> |
| Reply-to: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) |
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:09:10PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Is this the same thing the per-device IO-queue-freeze patches for > > >HDAPS also > > > need to do? If so, you may want to talk to Elias Oltmanns > > > <eo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> about it. Added to CC. > > > > Thanks for the heads up Henrique. Even though these issues seem to be > > related up to a certain degree, there probably are some important > > differences. When suspending a system, the emphasis is on leaving the > > system in a consistent state (think of journalled file systems), whereas > > disk shock protection is mainly concerned with stopping I/O as soon as > > possible. As yet, I cannot possibly say to what extend these two > > concepts can be reconciled in the sense of sharing some common code. > > Actually, I believe requirements are same. > > 'don't do i/o in dangerous period'. > > swsusp will just do sync() before entering dangerous period. That > provides consistent-enough state... As I've said many times before - if the requirement is "don't do I/O" then you have to freeze the filesystem. In no way does 'sync' prevent filesystems from doing I/O..... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: [BUILD-FAILURE] linux-next: Tree for June 27 - randconfig build fails with !CONFIG_XFS_POSIX_ACL, Kamalesh Babulal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer, Rafael J. Wysocki |
| Previous by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer, Pavel Machek |
| Next by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer, Rafael J. Wysocki |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |