![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 25 May 2007, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > First, let me agree with you that for the atomic copy itself, the > freezer is unnecessary. Disabling irqs and so on is enough to ensure the > atomic copy is atomic. I don't think any of us are arguing with you > there. First off, realize that the problem actually happens during suspend-to-ram. Think about that for a second. In fact, think about it for a _loong_ time. Because dammit, people seem to have a really hard time even realizing this. There is no "atomic copy". There is no "checkpointing". There is no "spoon". > Hope this helps. Hope _the_above_ helps. Why is it so hard for people to accept that suspend-to-ram shouldn't break because of some IDIOTIC issues with disk snapshots? And why do you people _always_ keep mixing the two up? Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-05-25 04:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||