On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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... > We support it as best we can. We can't fix broken firmware or binary drivers, but yes, in cases where the kernel itself is at fault, it is just as supported as anything else we enable. The exception is secure boot, where it is completely disabled. There has been some talk of trying to find a solution that will not break the trust model, but I have not seen any patches there. There is plenty of documentation as to how to enable hibernation. For people who want that functionality, I am happy to have them test it. If there is an actual kernel problem around it, we handle that with about the same priority as an alsa bug or suspend bug. If it is a non kernel problem, there is nothing we can do. >> 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? > You want things that are potentially buggy and can eat data? How long have we had btrfs enabled now? Things which are known to not work on a sizeable percentage of hardware that the driver claims to support? nouveau would top the list Things which a small subset of users actually care about and usually work for them, but most people don't care? CAN, various obscure network protocols, filesystems, we have a ton of them. I do not think that we should disable any of these by default. One of the advantages of Fedora is the ability to experiment, develop, test, or work with things which just cannot be supported under a contract/SLA type environment. >> 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? > It is known to be buggy on some hardware, and yes, it is a neutral mechanism. There are plenty of mechanisms in the kernel which can completely destroy a system with bad policy. We trust userspace to have a sane policy around them. We tend to not make recommendations as to what people choose to use on their own systems, but we absolutely suggest that desktop environments with a large number of users not write a bad policy around them. Now people are asking to cripple the mechanism so that Gnome users can default to poor policy. Why should non gnome users have to change their systems at all to accommodate a gnome desktop policy? > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering, Red Hat > _______________________________________________ > desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-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/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ 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
