Re: [PATCH] swsusp: Use platform mode by default

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 11 May 2007 18:30, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > We're working on fixing the breakage, but currently it's difficult, because
> > > none of my testboxes has problems with the 'platform' hibernation and I
> > > cannot reproduce the reported issues.
> > The rule for anything ACPI-related has been: no regressions.
> >
> > It doesn't matter if something fixes 10 boxes, if it breaks a single one, 
> > it's going to get reverted.
>
> [Well, I think I should stop explaining decisions that weren't mine.  Yet, I
> feel responsible for patches that I sign-off.]
>
> Just to clarify, the change in question isn't new.  It was introduced by the
> commit 9185cfa92507d07ac787bc73d06c42222eec7239 before 2.6.20, at Seife's
> request and with Pavel's acceptance.
>
> > We had much too much of the "two steps forward, one step back" dance with 
> > ACPI a few years ago, which is the reason that rule got installed (and 
> > which is why it's ACPI-only: in some other subsystems we accept the fact 
> > that sometimes we don't know how to fix some hardware issue, but the new 
> > situation is at least better than the old one).
> >
> > I agree that it can be aggravating to know that you can fix a problem for 
> > some people, but then being limited by the fact that it breaks for others. 
> > But beign able to *rely* on something that used to work is just too 
> > important, and with ACPI, you can never make a good judgement of which way 
> > works better (since it really just depends on some random firmware issues 
> > that we have zero visibility into).
> >
> > Also, quite often, it may *seem* like something fixes more boxes than it 
> > breaks, but it's because people report *breakage* only, and then a few 
> > months later it turns out that it's exactly the other way around: now it's 
> > a hundred people who report breakage with the *new* code, and the reason 
> > people thought it fixed more than it broke was that the people for whom 
> > the old code worked fine obviously never reported it!
> >
> > So this is why "a single regression is considered more important than ten 
> > fixes" - because a single regressionr report tends to actually be just the 
> > first indication of a lot of people who simply haven't tested the new code 
> > yet! People for whom the old code is broken are more likely to test new 
> > things.
> >
> > So I'd just suggest changing the default back to PM_DISK_SHUTDOWN (but 
> > leave the "pm_ops->enter" testing in place - ie not reverting the other 
> > commits in the series).
>
> The series actually preserves the 2.6.20/21 behavior.  By defaulting back to
> PM_DISK_SHUTDOWN, we'll cause some users for whom 2.6.20 and 2.6.21 work to
> report this change as a regression, so please let me avoid making this decision
> (I'm not the maintainer of the hibernation code after all).
>
> The problem is that we don't know about regressions until somebody reports them
> and if that happens after two affected kernel releases, what should we do?
I think that one of the reasons people (guilty) don't report problems 
with suspend and hibernate is that it's been a problem on and off and 
when it breaks people don't bother to chase it, they just don't use it 
unless it's critical, or they install suspend2.

I only suggest that if 'platform' is more correct use that, don't change 
it again. Then fix platform.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/