From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D162FA04 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:16:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.emea.novell.com (mail.emea.novell.com [130.57.118.101]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AD7F1B2 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:16:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:16:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" In-Reply-To: <9412727.0bKgPF9YKr@vostro.rjw.lan> Message-ID: References: <4541757.2i2CVNfqPd@vostro.rjw.lan> <9412727.0bKgPF9YKr@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] giving freezer well-defined semantics List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 8 Jul 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > OK, it is necessary to ensure that the contents of the image will be > consistent with the state of filesystems on the storage media, so > everything that may change that state should be "frozen" before the > image is created, but "frozen" in terms of "no persistent state changes > from now on" rather than in terms of "no forward progress from now on". Yeah. So again, why do we even have freezer for so many kernel threads at all? :) Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs