> I know nothing about journalling file systems or how well they limit the
> critical sections of time where the file system is exposed to corruption
> from sudden power failure. Its an interesting question though.
A properly written journalling file system has no critical sections. The
only thin
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:43:13PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2011, mark gross wrote:
> > I need to get more details on this but I assume its a state where the
> > meta data of the file system is committed to the emmc before lights go
> > off such that when power is re
On Wednesday, May 18, 2011, mark gross wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 01:07:57AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 14, 2011, mark gross wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 06:54:57PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 13, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
> >
On Saturday, May 14, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
> > I read the patches. My question was about the general idea of who should
> > be responsible of making these decisions.
>
> The best should be, I think, to have some guidelines and than the
> possibility to choose the best policy for each s
On Saturday, May 14, 2011, mark gross wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 06:54:57PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, May 13, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > >
> > > 2011/5/12 Rafael J. Wysocki :
> > > > On Thursday, May 12, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
> > > >>
On Saturday, May 14, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 12. Mai 2011, 21:27:44 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> >> On Thursday, May 12, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
> >> > What happen normally in runtime pm implementation is th
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 12. Mai 2011, 21:27:44 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
>> On Thursday, May 12, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
>> > What happen normally in runtime pm implementation is that every devices
>> > are switched off and are enabled only w
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:24 PM, mark gross wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 07:11:01PM +0200, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
>> What happen normally in runtime pm implementation is that every devices
>> are switched off and are enabled only when needed.
>> In our case instead we have a completely func
> I read the patches. My question was about the general idea of who should
> be responsible of making these decisions.
The best should be, I think, to have some guidelines and than the
possibility to choose the best policy for each situation.
In my board I needed to shutdown video in capture and
On Friday, May 13, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> 2011/5/12 Rafael J. Wysocki :
> > On Thursday, May 12, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
> >> What happen normally in runtime pm implementation is that every devices
> >> are switched off and are enabled only when needed.
> >> In ou
Hi Rafael,
2011/5/12 Rafael J. Wysocki :
> On Thursday, May 12, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
>> What happen normally in runtime pm implementation is that every devices
>> are switched off and are enabled only when needed.
>> In our case instead we have a completely functional embedded system an
On Thursday, May 12, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
> What happen normally in runtime pm implementation is that every devices
> are switched off and are enabled only when needed.
> In our case instead we have a completely functional embedded system and,
> when an asyncrhonous event appear, we have
What happen normally in runtime pm implementation is that every devices
are switched off and are enabled only when needed.
In our case instead we have a completely functional embedded system and,
when an asyncrhonous event appear, we have only some tens milliseconds
before the actual power failure
13 matches
Mail list logo
