On Di, 02.10.18 07:26, Justin Forbes (jmforbes@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > What is new is that GNOME (g-s-d) now uses it be default through > > by choosing suspend-then-hibernate as suspend action when > > hibernation is available. > > Right, so systemd really is just proxying, and Gnome is now creating a > policy. It does not change the underlying issue, we shouldn't cripple > a mechanism because someone wants to introduce a new undesirable Uh, the mechanism is already "crippled", I mean, that's the key of the issue: the hibernation mechanism apparently doesn't have the quality and does not receive the love it needs for the Fedora community to support it properly. > There is a difference between a "policy default to off", and "turning > off the mechanism". I would expect a new policy defaulting to off > would actually default to whatever is currently there. When a user > upgrades from F28 to F30, it seems wrong that their power > configuration would change in a way that is unexpected, and frankly > more difficult to manage. A regular user can run gnome-tweaks and > decide on lid behavior. A regular user cannot edit the kernel command > line once a system is booted. Now, it requires root. And we are > making it harder for people to edit it as a system boots with other > planned changes. So let me ask then: is it the Fedora kernel team's intention to support hibernation well enough that it can work for "regular users"? With the above you suggest the code quality and will to support is good enough for "regular users" to be exposed to it. It was my assumption that everybody agreed that precisely that was not the case and that hibernation is at best a "tech preview" that only users who know what they do should enable, i.e. those which know how to edit the kernel cmdline... > I don't agree that the way we have been doing this is sub-optimal at > all. In fact, I think this proposed patch is the sub-optimal way. My > point is, new features, particularly with possible undesirable > results, are often defaulted to off under a "tech preview" model. The > mechanism in the kernel is not new. it may not work for everyone, but > it has been working fairly well for those who it does work for. Why > would we change them when a piece of userspace (that some of them > might never even use) wants to create a poor default policy? Can you give examples of other kernel subsystems that are also advertised as available by the Fedora kernel, and part of the core kernel RPM but are of this "tech preview" kind? > It really is simple. You don't cripple a mechanism so that you can > install a bad default policy. The kernel is providing a plain and > neutral mechanism here. If people agree that the default policy is Well, it's not a "neutral mechanism" if you don't intend to properly support it and if you know it's known to be buggy, and you apparently suggest that people not use it? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
