Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756746AbYACWGm (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:06:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754491AbYACWGd (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:06:33 -0500 Received: from home.nigel.suspend2.net ([203.171.70.205]:34672 "EHLO server1.example.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753990AbYACWGb (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:06:31 -0500 Message-ID: <477D5C4F.8050800@nigel.suspend2.net> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:06:07 +1100 From: Nigel Cunningham Reply-To: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oliver Neukum CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Pavel Machek , Kyle Moffett , Matthew Garrett , David Chinner , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: freeze vs freezer References: <4744FD87.7010301@goop.org> <200801031047.58559.oliver@neukum.org> <477CB075.5080507@nigel.suspend2.net> <200801031215.07145.oliver@neukum.org> In-Reply-To: <200801031215.07145.oliver@neukum.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1517 Lines: 40 Hi. Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2008 10:52:53 schrieb Nigel Cunningham: >> Hi. >> >> Oliver Neukum wrote: >>> Am Donnerstag 03 Januar 2008 schrieb Nigel Cunningham: >>>> On top of this, I made a (too simple at the moment) freeze_filesystems >>>> function which iterates through &super_blocks in reverse order, freezing >>>> fuse filesystems or ordinary ones. I say 'too simple' because it doesn't >>>> currently allow for the possibility of someone mounting (say) ext3 on >>>> fuse, but that would just be an extension of what's already done. >>> How do you deal with fuse server tasks using other fuse filesystems? >> Since they're frozen in reverse order, the dependant one would be frozen >> first. > > Say I do: > > a) mount fuse on /tmp/first > b) mount fuse on /tmp/second > > Then the server task for (a) does "ls /tmp/second". So it will be frozen, > right? How do you then freeze (a)? And keep in mind that the server task > may have forked. I guess I should first ask, is this a real life problem or a hypothetical twisted web? I don't see why you would want to make two filesystems interdependent - it sounds like the way to create livelock and deadlocks in normal use, before we even begin to think about hibernating. Regards, Nigel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/