On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This *not* a regression, it is an intended behavior change [..]
That counts as a regression.
If things used to work, and they don't work, it's a regression. If
it's intentional, that just makes it worse.
> Yes this may break existing configurations for some users, most likely
> users running some custom setup, who thus should be able to fix things
> by adding one more customization to there setup.
.. and apparently this whole paragraph is completely bogus. It *does*
break things, and for normal people. That's what the bug report is all
about. So don't waffle about it.
Bjørn, what's your setup? Is this perhaps solvable some other way?
> TL;DR: This change really is for the better and is here to stay.
Wrong. We don't break existing setups, and your attitude needs fixing.
Rafael, please get it reverted, or I will have to revert it. We have
*long* had a rule that we don't break things "in order to improve
things for others", and quite frankly, power management and ACPI in
particular was exactly *why* that rule was introduced, because the
whole "one step back, two steps forward" model does not work.
The problem needs to be solved some other way, and developers need to
f*cking stop with the "we can break peoples setups" mentality./
Hans, seriously. You have the wrong mental model. Fix it.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
