Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM / Sleep: Freeze filesystems during system suspend/hibernation

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:04:46 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> On Friday, May 25, 2012, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>> >> commit b94887bbc0621e1e8402e7f0ec4bc3adf46c9a6e
>> >>> >> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
>> >>> >> Date:   Fri Feb 17 12:42:08 2012 -0500
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>     Freeze all filesystems during system suspend and (kernel-driven)
>> >>> >>     hibernation by calling freeze_supers() for all superblocks and thaw
>> >>> >>     them during the subsequent resume with the help of thaw_supers().
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>     This makes filesystems stay in a consistent state in case something
>> >>> >>     goes wrong between system suspend (or hibernation) and the subsequent
>> >>> >>     resume (e.g. journal replays won't be necessary in those cases).  In
>> >>> >>     particular, this should help to solve a long-standing issue that, in
>> >>> >>     some cases, during resume from hibernation the boot loader causes the
>> >>> >>     journal to be replied for the filesystem containing the kernel image
>> >>> >>     and/or initrd causing it to become inconsistent with the information
>> >>> >>     stored in the hibernation image.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>     The user-space-driven hibernation (s2disk) is not covered by this
>> >>> >>     change, because the freezing of filesystems prevents s2disk from
>> >>> >>     accessing device special files it needs to do its job.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>     This change is based on earlier work by Nigel Cunningham.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>     Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>     Rebased to 3.3-rc3 by Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>>
>> >>> Did this patch ever wind up going anywhere?  Fedora has it sitting in
>> >>> our tree with a comment that says "rebase" and I don't see it in the
>> >>> linux-next tree at all.
>> >>>
>> >>> Did if fall through the cracks or was it NAKed somewhere?
>> >>
>> >> No, it wasn't in principle. There were some comments I haven't addressed yet.
>> >
>> > Dredging up a really old thread, sorry.
>> >
>> > We're still carrying this patch along in Fedora.  Should we drop it at
>> > this point, or is it still eventually going to head upstream?
>>
>> Fixed Rafael's email address.  (Double sorry.)
>
> No biggie.
>
> I just hadn't got sufficient response for that patch at the time it was
> submitted, so I guess it would be good to resubmit it.  Please feel free to
> do that if you want.

You want me to resend a patch you authored back to you?  I mean, I can
do that but it seems a bit strange.  All I did was rebase what you
wrote to a newer kernel version.

josh
--
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/