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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
