On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:04:46 AM Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Josh Boyer <jwbo...@fedoraproject.org> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl> wrote: >> >> On Friday, May 25, 2012, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl> wrote: >> >>> >> commit b94887bbc0621e1e8402e7f0ec4bc3adf46c9a6e >> >>> >> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl> >> >>> >> 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 <r...@sisk.pl> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Rebased to 3.3-rc3 by Josh Boyer <jwbo...@redhat.com> >> >>> >> >>> 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
