From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161474AbWBUK5r (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:57:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161463AbWBUK5r (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:57:47 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:30892 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161476AbWBUK5r (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:57:47 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:57:11 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Patrick Mochel Cc: Greg KH , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-pm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 3/5] [pm] Respect the actual device power states in sysfs interface Message-ID: <20060221105711.GK21557@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20060218155543.GE5658@openzaurus.ucw.cz> <20060220004635.GA22576@kroah.com> <20060220220404.GA25746@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Po 20-02-06 17:09:26, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 09:58:27AM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > > > Would you mind commmenting on why, as well as your opinion on the validity > > > of the patches themselves? > > > > > > This static, hardcoded policy was introduced into the core ~2 weeks ago, > > > and it doesn't seem like it belongs there at all. > > > > That patch was accepted as it fixed a oops. It also went in for > > 2.6.16-rc2, which is much earlier than 2.6.16-rc4, and it had been in > > the -mm tree for quite a while for people to test it out and verify that > > it didn't break anything. I didn't hear any complaints about it, so > > that is why it went in. > > > > In contrast, this patch series creates a new api and doesn't necessarily > > fix any reported bugs. It also has not had the time to be tested in the > > -mm tree, and there is quite a lot of disagreement about the patches on > > the lists. All of that combinded makes it not acceptable for so late in > > the -rc cycle (remember, -rc4 means only serious bug fixes.) > > Thanks. > > However, there are a couple of things to note: > > - These patches don't create a new API; they fix the semantics of an > existing API by restoring them to its originally designed semantics. They may reintroduce "original" semantics, but they'll break applications needing 2.6.15 semantic (where 2 meant D3hot). > - The BUG() still exists and is relatively easily triggerable (by calling > pci_choose_state() with the wrong value). The fact that the BUG() was > allowed into the kernel is surprising - the mantra for a long time has > been that no new BUG()s should be added. This one is easily made nicer > (see patch 4/4 in the next series), so I don't see why it wasn't > targeted before.. I don't know what you are talking about here. "No new BUGs"?! It is bad to have bug triggerable from userspace, but that was fixed. Pavel -- Web maintainer for suspend.sf.net (www.sf.net/projects/suspend) wanted...