Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi,
>> On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 08:18, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> > I believe we should freeze hotplug before processes.
>
> I agree. IMO user space should not be considered as available once we have
> started freezing processes, so hotplug should be disabled before. By the s
Hi,
On Friday, 1 of April 2005 00:28, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 08:18, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > Ok, what do you think about this one?
> > > > >
> > > > > ===
> > > > >
> > > > > swsusp:
Hi.
On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 08:18, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > Ok, what do you think about this one?
> > > >
> > > > ===
> > > >
> > > > swsusp: disable usermodehelper after generating memory snapshot and
> > > > before
Hi!
> > > Ok, what do you think about this one?
> > >
> > > ===
> > >
> > > swsusp: disable usermodehelper after generating memory snapshot and
> > > before resuming devices, so when device fails to resume we
> > > won
Hi.
On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 02:32, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:02:44 -0800 (PST), Patrick Mochel
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, what do you think about this one?
> > >
> > >
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:02:44 -0800 (PST), Patrick Mochel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> > Ok, what do you think about this one?
> >
> > ===
> >
> > swsusp: disable usermodehelper after
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Ok, what do you think about this one?
>
> ===
>
> swsusp: disable usermodehelper after generating memory snapshot and
> before resuming devices, so when device fails to resume we
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:39:10 +0200, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > int swsusp_write(void)
> > {
> > int error;
> > - device_resume();
> > lock_swapdevices();
> > error = write_suspend_image();
> > /* This will unlock ignored swap devices since writing is
>
Hi!
> > > > We currently freeze processes for suspend-to-ram, too. I guess that
> > > > disable_usermodehelper is probably better and that in_suspend() should
> > > > only be used for sanity checks... go with disable_usermodehelper and
> > > > sorry for the noise.
> > >
> > > Here's another possi
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 17:35, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > We currently freeze processes for suspend-to-ram, too. I guess that
> > > disable_usermodehelper is probably better and that in_suspend() should
> > > only be used for sanity checks... go with disable_usermodehelper and
> > > sorry
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:23:35PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > I don't really want us to try execve during resume... Could we simply
> > artifically fail that execve with something if (in_suspend()) return
> > -EINVAL; [except that in_suspend()
Hi.
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 08:35, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > We currently freeze processes for suspend-to-ram, too. I guess that
> > > disable_usermodehelper is probably better and that in_suspend() should
> > > only be used for sanity checks... go with disable_usermodehelper and
> > > sorr
Hi!
> > We currently freeze processes for suspend-to-ram, too. I guess that
> > disable_usermodehelper is probably better and that in_suspend() should
> > only be used for sanity checks... go with disable_usermodehelper and
> > sorry for the noise.
>
> Here's another possibility: Freeze the workq
Hi.
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 07:44, Pavel Machek wrote:
> We currently freeze processes for suspend-to-ram, too. I guess that
> disable_usermodehelper is probably better and that in_suspend() should
> only be used for sanity checks... go with disable_usermodehelper and
> sorry for the noise.
Here's
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:23:35 -0800 (PST), Patrick Mochel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > I don't really want us to try execve during resume... Could we simply
> > artifically fail that execve with something if (in_suspend()) return
> > -EINVAL; [excep
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Pavel Machek wrote:
> I don't really want us to try execve during resume... Could we simply
> artifically fail that execve with something if (in_suspend()) return
> -EINVAL; [except that in_suspend() just is not there, but there were
> some proposals to add it].
>
> Or just a
16 matches
Mail list logo
