Re: Regression in suspend to ram in 2.6.31-rc kernels

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday 08 September 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:47:46AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> > Well, that commit seems a bit strange. It calls fat_clusters_flush()
> > unconditionally without checking sb->s_dirt. However, if my guess is
> > right, "sync after removed event" itself sounds like the issue in
> > suspend process.
> 
> The idea of ->sync_fs is that we always perform the sync activity,
> and not just the usual background superblock writeback trigerred by
> s_dirt.  If FAT doesn't need that and never has races around s_dirt
> you can add the check back, but I would recommend against it.
> 
> Also when you hack around this in FAt MMC will still fail with every
> other filesystem.

So, what should be done in your opinion?

Rafael
--
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/