On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Justin Forbes <jmforbes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Lennart Poettering > <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 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? That's silly to the point of nonsense. There's quite a lot of evidence of hardware bugs as a result of both ZFS and Btrfs catching such things in the act. That fully checksumming file systems intentionally face plant by design because they're immediately aware of inconsistency isn't a bug. I've had zero data eaten on Btrfs, I can't say the same due to bugs on other file systems or volume managers - on the same hardware where I know for sure it wasn't hardware instigating the problem. And this has been confirmed as XFS moved to metadata checksumming, just how silly some hardware behaves. It's basically the same dilemma as what's under discussion with hibernation. >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? I agree with this logic. The user space policy change is premature given the known state of things, and it's an open question what effort is being put into this by manufacturers of hardware and at Microsoft - which is relevant because that's bulk of the hardware market we're supporting. I guarantee you hibernation isn't working on Macs - whatever they're doing is not standard ACPI, 100% of the time on every Mac I've ever tried suspend on, the kernel detects the hibernation file is corrupt. Whether it's corrupted at the time it's written out or read in, I have no idea. But Apple's hibernation is not foolproof either. I see maybe 1 in 10 restore from hibernation fail. Application state saving on iOS and Android is about as fool proof as I've ever experienced. And if that's not the way forward, that's fine, but I don't see how looking backward at suspend to disk is really that helpful, as a policy. I'd say it's a net failure because it's not consistent, or reliable enough even on hardware it does often work on. Both suspend and hibernation have a much higher risk of failure to complete the cycle: leaving the laptop closed, running, discharging, and getting hot. Poweroff has almost none of that risk. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ 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
