* David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > - Includes a command line parameter, which needs work yet ... it
> > > currently turns this test off, but it should also let the target
> > > state be specified (and maybe even default to "no test").
>
> I think "no test" should be the default; STR working sanely on x86 is
> unfortunately too much a surprise. Someone more active in PM testing
> should update that.
All i'm asking for is to make the self-test easily accessible. Not for
it to blow up in the face of users who do not ask for it.
And, at least to me, there seems to be a rather apparent correlation
between "suspend/resume regressions caught as early as possible" and the
future, desired state of: "STR working sanely on x86" ;-)
You really seem to treat S2R suckiness as a fact of life, but it isnt.
Yes, it's a hard field for a number of reasons, but we could be doing _a
lot_ better. One of them would be this "notice s2r breakage when i
create or add the patch that breaks it" angle.
Ingo
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
