Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753498AbZIJTX7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:23:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753148AbZIJTX6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:23:58 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:46884 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753092AbZIJTX5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:23:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:23:54 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: OGAWA Hirofumi Cc: Zdenek Kabelac , Christoph Hellwig , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: Regression in suspend to ram in 2.6.31-rc kernels Message-ID: <20090910192354.GD23356@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200908312119.12121.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090903232317.GA6760@lst.de> <87ljkvmt71.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <87iqfx5mss.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <20090907125130.GA1595@ucw.cz> <87ljko5k3v.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ljko5k3v.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1294 Lines: 31 On Wed 2009-09-09 22:21:56, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > Pavel Machek writes: > > >> It seems > >> > >> 1) sync() (probabry "sync" command) > >> 2) sync as part of suspend sequence > >> 3) sync_filesystem() by mmc remove event > >> > >> I guess the root-cause of the problem would be 3). However, it would not > >> be easy to fix, at least, we would need to think about what we want to > >> do for it. So, to workaround it for now, I've made this patch. > > > > MMC driver trying to synchronize filesystems looks like ugly layering > > violation to me. Why are we doing that? > > There is no _layering violation_ here. IIRC, mmc just tells card removed > event to another layer (on some points of view, to tell event can be > wrong though). The partition (block) layer does it by event. So what is the problem? Emulating sync when card is already removed seems little ... interesting? -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/