> Yes, that bug should be fixed anyway. But that doesn't justify breaking > suspend/resume completely, which *is* a regression. > > Look, I'm not saying that we should drop this patch altogether. All I'm > saying is that we should postpone it so that we can: a) get suspend and > resume working again (and by doing so make sure no other suspend/resume > regressions silently creep in, because that always seems to happen when > you're not looking) and b) fix any preexisting issues without possibly > scrambling the result with this perhaps unrelated fix. > > So, again, I think the safest road forward is to back this one out for > now, fix whatever this other bug is and once suspend/resume is working > properly again we can revisit this patch based on a known-good baseline. I am with you here. I want to add that the proper fix should be developed without thinking too much about stable in the first place. *When* we have a proper working fix, then we can think about making it "more" suitable for backporting. Yet, it may also be a result that older kernels need a different solution. Or have no solution at all, in case they can't do atomic_transfers and this is needed. D'accord?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
