Hi Linus. On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 19:10 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > 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?
It does. Sorry. I didn't read enough of the context. To answer the question, I guess the answer is that although they're different creatures, they have similarities. This is one of them, which is why I could make the mistake I did. Nothing in the issue being discussed was unique to suspend-to-ram. Perhaps we (or at least I) focus too much on the similarities, but that doesn't mean they're not there. Regards, Nigel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part