On Po 20-02-06 17:09:26, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > 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. They may reintroduce "original" semantics, but they'll break applications needing 2.6.15 semantic (where 2 meant D3hot). > - 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.. I don't know what you are talking about here. "No new BUGs"?! It is bad to have bug triggerable from userspace, but that was fixed. Pavel -- Web maintainer for suspend.sf.net (www.sf.net/projects/suspend) wanted...
