[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090910192354.GD23356@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:23:54 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Cc: Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
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 Wed 2009-09-09 22:21:56, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> writes:
>
> >> It seems
> >>
> >> 1) sync() (probabry "sync" command)
> >> 2) sync as part of suspend sequence
> >> 3) sync_filesystem() by mmc remove event
> >>
> >> I guess the root-cause of the problem would be 3). However, it would not
> >> be easy to fix, at least, we would need to think about what we want to
> >> do for it. So, to workaround it for now, I've made this patch.
> >
> > MMC driver trying to synchronize filesystems looks like ugly layering
> > violation to me. Why are we doing that?
>
> There is no _layering violation_ here. IIRC, mmc just tells card removed
> event to another layer (on some points of view, to tell event can be
> wrong though). The partition (block) layer does it by event.
So what is the problem? Emulating sync when card is already removed
seems little ... interesting?
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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