On 04/07/2014 03:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > So if I'm following correctly, we should be able to sort the methods > into three buckets: > > 1) known to (almost) always be 'safe' > 2) may cause system freeze if they fail > 3) definitely cause system freeze if they fail > > We put the methods from bucket 1) first, in whichever order makes the > most sense. Then we put any methods from bucket 2), in an order derived > from some kind of likelihood of success / likelihood of hang on fail > calculation. And at the end we can put precisely *one* method from > bucket 3, which should obviously be the one most likely to succeed on > the most systems which haven't already worked with one of the other > methods. We can't have more than one bucket 3) method, it just doesn't > make sense. > Nice idea, but wrong. The problem is that you have to consider the probability of success vs failure of the type 2 & 3 methods, and what is a regression or not. > It sounds like at least TRIPLE and BIOS are 'bucket 3' methods, so it > seems like we have to pick which of the two we think is most useful, put > it last, and not have the other one. Of the new methods it sounds like > EFI is 'bucket 1', BIOS is 'bucket 3', and CF9 is 'bucket 2'. > > so, it sounds like... > > 1) ACPI > 2) KEYBOARD > 3) ACPI > 4) KEYBOARD > 5) EFI > possibly 6) CF9 > 7) TRIPLE *or* BIOS > > is what you would say makes sense, right? And really all there is to > decide is whether to include CF9, and whether to put TRIPLE or BIOS at > the end? > Yep. And it has now been shown again that CF9 just isn't safe. We do TRIPLE as the ultimate fallback now. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|