[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87lkd9ohtn.fsf@jbms.ath.cx>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:13:56 -0400
From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@....edu>
To: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, rjw@...k.pl, miltonm@....com,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, ying.huang@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david@...g.hm,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations
It seems that you could still potentially get a failure to freeze if one
FUSE process depends on another, and the one that is frozen second just
happens to be waiting on the one that is frozen first when it is frozen.
I admit that this situation is unlikely, and perhaps acceptable.
A larger concern is that it seems that freezing FUSE processes at all
_will_ generate deadlocks if a non-synchronous or memory-map-supporting
filesystem is loopback mounted from a FUSE filesystem. In that case, if
you attempt to sync or free memory once FUSE is frozen, you are sure to
get a deadlock.
--
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists