[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Dealing with swsusp vs. pmdisk

    > > > > - Freezer hooks (I can easily get suspend2 working with the old freezer
    > > > > until people are convinced it's not up to the task). This accounts for
    > > > > the vast majority of those file changes.
    > > >
    > > > It would be nice if you did that as a first step indeed. I'm personally
    > > > not convinced of the usefullness of having a freezer at all ;)
    > >
    > > Without a freezer, how would you ensure that other processes don't mess
    > > up your memory state while you're saving/reloading the image?
    > Hrm, you are not protecting about "asynchronous" (interrupt based)
    > activity anyway... I'm not sure how the IO sceduler may kill us
    > and whatever doing things based on a timer that doesn't have a
    > device-driver underneath getting the PM callbacks.
    > As far as suspend-to-disk is concerned, I agree we need a state
    > snapshot, then we need to be able to play with drivers to save that
    > state without having userland get in the way, so yup, we need a
    > freezer. I think we don't need it for suspend-to-ram though.

    You are right, freezer should not be needed for s-to-ram. I wanted to
    keep it consistent with s-to-disk, and maybe make locking a bit easier
    for drivers.
    When do you have a heart between your knees?
    [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.019 / U:2.996 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site