On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 09:58:27AM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > Would you mind commmenting on why, as well as your opinion on the validity > > of the patches themselves? > > > > This static, hardcoded policy was introduced into the core ~2 weeks ago, > > and it doesn't seem like it belongs there at all. > > That patch was accepted as it fixed a oops. It also went in for > 2.6.16-rc2, which is much earlier than 2.6.16-rc4, and it had been in > the -mm tree for quite a while for people to test it out and verify that > it didn't break anything. I didn't hear any complaints about it, so > that is why it went in. > > In contrast, this patch series creates a new api and doesn't necessarily > fix any reported bugs. It also has not had the time to be tested in the > -mm tree, and there is quite a lot of disagreement about the patches on > the lists. All of that combinded makes it not acceptable for so late in > the -rc cycle (remember, -rc4 means only serious bug fixes.) Thanks. However, there are a couple of things to note: - These patches don't create a new API; they fix the semantics of an existing API by restoring them to its originally designed semantics. - The BUG() still exists and is relatively easily triggerable (by calling pci_choose_state() with the wrong value). The fact that the BUG() was allowed into the kernel is surprising - the mantra for a long time has been that no new BUG()s should be added. This one is easily made nicer (see patch 4/4 in the next series), so I don't see why it wasn't targeted before.. - There is a bug, reported by me, and with patches to fix the behavior. What better solution is there than that? For context, I am experimenting with the power consumption of devices and systems in various power states. Not many devices support states other than D3, but some do, and it seems like a completely valid choice option to use those states, if I choose to do so. There is currently no other nice way to do so. And, I'm sure that most will agree that modifying this sysfs interface is a lot nicer than manually tickling PCI config space from a userspace process.. > > This seems like the easiest way to fixing it, but I'm open to > > alternative suggestions.. > > Care to resend the series based on all of the comments you have > addressed so far? I'll be glad to review it then. Done and done. Thanks, Pat
