On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 07:30:35PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Properly resolved by whom? It sounds like you're up for intentionally > allowing a userspace regression, and also volunteering other people's > time into fixing that regression? The way I understand the kernel > development process is that the person proposing a change is responsible > for not intentionally causing regressions, and if one is pointed out, a > v+1 of that patch is provided that doesn't cause the regression. If you think the code does not work when the system frequently suspends and resumes, then well it is broken already, as that can happen just as much on non-Android systems. So maybe we should just remove it if it is so broken that you fear about regressions on the 3 and a half Android systems in the world running an upstream kernel?
