[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1436341873.5636.5.camel@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:51:13 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync()
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 00:11 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 07, 2015 04:38:26 PM Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > That is a tough nut. But that's not a reason to make it worse.
> > I'd say there's no reason not to use a secondary interface to
> > suspend without syncing or to extend or introduce such an interface
> > if the API is deficient.
>
> Well, the point here is that the sync we have doesn't prevent all potentially
> possible bad things from happening. It's a partial measure at best in that
> respect.
Well, removed hardware doesn't work. That is a very basic limitation.
But can we guarantee that any returned syscall actually wrote to disk?
Yes, but it must be done in kernel space. So doing a sync has a true
benefit.
I don't see why you would want to generally remove it. What is wrong
with an interface allowing a selection there to those who don't care
about additional guarantees?
Regards
Oliver
--
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