[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1505091556001.5397-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 15:59:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync()
On Fri, 8 May 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> My current view on that is that whether or not to do a sync() before suspending
> ultimately is a policy decision and should belong to user space as such (modulo
> the autosleep situation when user space may not know when the suspend is going
> to happen).
>
> Moreover, user space is free to do as many sync()s before suspending as it
> wants to and the question here is whether or not the *kernel* should sync()
> in the suspend code path.
>
> Since we pretty much can demonstrate that having just one sync() in there is
> not sufficient in general, should we put two of them in there? Or just
> remove the existing one and leave it to user space entirely?
I don't know about the advantages of one sync over two. But how about
adding a "syncs_before_suspend" (or just "syncs") sysfs attribute that
takes a small numeric value? The default can be 0, and the user could
set it to 1 or 2 (or higher).
Alan Stern
--
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