Re: [PATCH] [5/48] Suspend2 2.1.9.8 for 2.6.12:350-workthreads.patch

[Nigel Cunningham]

Hi.

On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 21:25, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > OTOH: this is only critical for "niceness", not for
> > > correctness. Calling sync() before suspend is simply nice thing to do,
> > > but it is not required in any way. If someone is doing long dd, tough,
> > > they are going to loose some data if wakeup fails. It is no worse than
> > > sudden poweroff.
> > 
> > How can you say it's only required for niceness one minute, then admit
> > it might result in data loss the next?
> 
> It will result in data loss *if resume fails*. But failing resume
> *always* causes data in running programs to be lost, so I do not see
> that as a problem.

It does for you :>

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
Evolution.
Enumerate the requirements.
Consider the interdependencies.
Calculate the probabilities.
Be amazed that people believe it happened. 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/