Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync()

[Alan Stern]

On Fri, 8 May 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> My current view on that is that whether or not to do a sync() before suspending
> ultimately is a policy decision and should belong to user space as such (modulo
> the autosleep situation when user space may not know when the suspend is going
> to happen).
> 
> Moreover, user space is free to do as many sync()s before suspending as it
> wants to and the question here is whether or not the *kernel* should sync()
> in the suspend code path.
> 
> Since we pretty much can demonstrate that having just one sync() in there is
> not sufficient in general, should we put two of them in there?  Or just
> remove the existing one and leave it to user space entirely?

I don't know about the advantages of one sync over two.  But how about
adding a "syncs_before_suspend" (or just "syncs") sysfs attribute that
takes a small numeric value?  The default can be 0, and the user could
set it to 1 or 2 (or higher).

Alan Stern

--
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/