[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200909082148.33872.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 21:48:33 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: Regression in suspend to ram in 2.6.31-rc kernels
On Tuesday 08 September 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:47:46AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> > Well, that commit seems a bit strange. It calls fat_clusters_flush()
> > unconditionally without checking sb->s_dirt. However, if my guess is
> > right, "sync after removed event" itself sounds like the issue in
> > suspend process.
>
> The idea of ->sync_fs is that we always perform the sync activity,
> and not just the usual background superblock writeback trigerred by
> s_dirt. If FAT doesn't need that and never has races around s_dirt
> you can add the check back, but I would recommend against it.
>
> Also when you hack around this in FAt MMC will still fail with every
> other filesystem.
So, what should be done in your opinion?
Rafael
--
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