On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:50:48PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, 11 February 2007 14:37, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:19:57PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > > > > Then change the PCI layer to do the basic PM only for known compatible > > > > drivers, and modify only the known-compatible drivers to mark them > > > > explicitly compatible. IMHO, it generally is a bad idea to require that > > > > any driver explicitly states what it *does not* support. It's the reason > > > > why users encounter problem on new features with old drivers. For instance, > > > > do you know if the old ISA NE2000 driver breaks suspend ? I don't know, > > > > but I would at least expect it not to support it by default. It's best > > > > to announce what *is* supported and consider everything unimplemented > > > > otherwise explicitly stated. > > > > > > This ignores the reality of the situation, which is that many drivers > > > support suspend and resume despite the lack of any explicit > > > implementation. Changing things so they're flagged as broken when > > > they're not would be a regression. > > > > Those which are identified as OK should be flagged OK. Only those for > > which we have no idea should be flagged broken. > > I think we don't need to flag the drivers identified as OK. Let's flag only > the suspicious ones. > > Whatever we finally come up with, I'd like to avoid modifying drivers that are > known good. I understand your concerns, but the problem is not *current* drivers, but what will happen to *new* drivers. If we make it implicit that a driver is compatible, then new drivers will be promoted as good even if nothing has been done for this. Regards, Willy
