Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review

[Nigel Cunningham]

Hi Linus.

On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 19:10 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > 
> > First, let me agree with you that for the atomic copy itself, the
> > freezer is unnecessary. Disabling irqs and so on is enough to ensure the
> > atomic copy is atomic. I don't think any of us are arguing with you
> > there.
> 
> First off, realize that the problem actually happens during 
> suspend-to-ram.
> 
> Think about that for a second.
> 
> In fact, think about it for a _loong_ time. Because dammit, people seem to 
> have a really hard time even realizing this.
> 
> 	There is no "atomic copy".
> 
> 	There is no "checkpointing".
> 
> 	There is no "spoon".
> 
> > Hope this helps.
> 
> Hope _the_above_ helps. Why is it so hard for people to accept that 
> suspend-to-ram shouldn't break because of some IDIOTIC issues with disk 
> snapshots?
> 
> And why do you people _always_ keep mixing the two up?

It does. Sorry. I didn't read enough of the context.

To answer the question, I guess the answer is that although they're
different creatures, they have similarities. This is one of them, which
is why I could make the mistake I did. Nothing in the issue being
discussed was unique to suspend-to-ram. Perhaps we (or at least I) focus
too much on the similarities, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

Regards,

Nigel

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part