On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:06, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 19:53 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Having drivers explicitly marked as to whether they are safe is a good
> > > kernel
> > > feature; what to do if they're not is policy.
> >
> > That's true, but
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 19:53 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Having drivers explicitly marked as to whether they are safe is a good
> > kernel
> > feature; what to do if they're not is policy.
>
> That's true, but I assume that the people who opt for doing that are also
> willing to take
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 12:13 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
> > it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which
> > should
Hi!
> > > instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't
> > > support
> > > it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which
> > > should
> > > mean exactly the same without modifying the drivers. I find it obvious
> > > that
> > > a driver which
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> - Problem what to do with drivers that work for some people and don't work
> for the others (ie. if we don't flag them as known good, we will break the
> setups in which they work)
And this issue is independent of whether a driver has .suspend and
.resume or not. For
Hi!
> > Also, I think there are quite some drivers already in the tree that don't
> > support suspend/resume explicitly and honestly we should start from adding
> > the
> > suspend/resume routines to these drivers _before_ we ban new drivers like
> > that.
>
> It'd be relatively quick to
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 16:19, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 2/11/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unfortunately it has to be done in one shot for all of the known good
> > drivers to avoid
> > user-observable regressions.
>
> No you don't. You can make it a config option that
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:27, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > The problem is it was made implicit long ago. The design is "optimistic",
> > so
> > to speak, and I think we have the following choices:
> >
> > 1) Change the design to make the
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which should
mean exactly the same without modifying the drivers.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The problem is it was made implicit long ago. The design is "optimistic", so
> to speak, and I think we have the following choices:
>
> 1) Change the design to make the kernel refuse to suspend if there are any
> drivers not explicitly flagged as
On 2/11/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unfortunately it has to be done in one shot for all of the known good drivers
to avoid
user-observable regressions.
No you don't. You can make it a config option that defaults to n
during a transition period.
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 14:57, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 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 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM
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 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > >
> > > > Then change the PCI
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 14:37, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:19:57PM +, 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
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:19:57PM +, 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
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
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:13:40PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
> > it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which
> >
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
> it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which should
> mean exactly the same without modifying the drivers. I find it obvious
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which should
mean exactly the same without modifying the drivers. I find it obvious that
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:13:40PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which
should
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
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:19:57PM +, 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.
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 14:37, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:19:57PM +, 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
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 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Then change the PCI layer to do
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 14:57, Willy Tarreau wrote:
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 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM +0100,
On 2/11/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately it has to be done in one shot for all of the known good drivers
to avoid
user-observable regressions.
No you don't. You can make it a config option that defaults to n
during a transition period.
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The problem is it was made implicit long ago. The design is optimistic, so
to speak, and I think we have the following choices:
1) Change the design to make the kernel refuse to suspend if there are any
drivers not explicitly flagged as
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which should
mean exactly the same without modifying the drivers.
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 16:19, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 2/11/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately it has to be done in one shot for all of the known good
drivers to avoid
user-observable regressions.
No you don't. You can make it a config option that defaults
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:27, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The problem is it was made implicit long ago. The design is optimistic,
so
to speak, and I think we have the following choices:
1) Change the design to make the kernel refuse to
Hi!
Also, I think there are quite some drivers already in the tree that don't
support suspend/resume explicitly and honestly we should start from adding
the
suspend/resume routines to these drivers _before_ we ban new drivers like
that.
It'd be relatively quick to modify all the
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
- Problem what to do with drivers that work for some people and don't work
for the others (ie. if we don't flag them as known good, we will break the
setups in which they work)
And this issue is independent of whether a driver has .suspend and
.resume or not. For
Hi!
instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't
support
it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which
should
mean exactly the same without modifying the drivers. I find it obvious
that
a driver which does provide a suspend
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 12:13 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which
should
mean
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 19:53 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Having drivers explicitly marked as to whether they are safe is a good
kernel
feature; what to do if they're not is policy.
That's true, but I assume that the people who opt for doing that are also
willing to take part in
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:06, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 19:53 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Having drivers explicitly marked as to whether they are safe is a good
kernel
feature; what to do if they're not is policy.
That's true, but I assume that
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 08:50:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 February 2007 18:52, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, the original desire was to
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 18:52, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > > Well, the original desire was to stop new drivers getting in without
> > > proper power management.
> >
> > I
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>
> > Well, the original desire was to stop new drivers getting in without
> > proper power management.
>
> I know, but I agree with the argument that having a driver without the
>
Hi,
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Gidday.
>
> On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 10:34 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, 10 February 2007 04:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 19:50 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > > > It also kind of
Gidday.
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 10:34 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 February 2007 04:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 19:50 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > > It also kind of bothers me that if a driver has no suspend/resume
> > > functions, and you suspend
Hi,
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 04:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 19:50 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > It also kind of bothers me that if a driver has no suspend/resume
> > functions, and you suspend and resume the system, we don't complain
> > about it even
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 08:50:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 18:52, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Well, the original desire was to stop new
Hi,
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 04:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 19:50 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
It also kind of bothers me that if a driver has no suspend/resume
functions, and you suspend and resume the system, we don't complain
about it even though
Gidday.
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 10:34 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 04:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 19:50 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
It also kind of bothers me that if a driver has no suspend/resume
functions, and you suspend and
Hi,
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Gidday.
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 10:34 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 04:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 19:50 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
It also kind of bothers me that
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Well, the original desire was to stop new drivers getting in without
proper power management.
I know, but I agree with the argument that having a driver without the
suspend/resume
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 18:52, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Well, the original desire was to stop new drivers getting in without
proper power management.
I know, but I agree
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 19:50 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> It also kind of bothers me that if a driver has no suspend/resume
> functions, and you suspend and resume the system, we don't complain
> about it even though there's a very good chance that device is not going
> to function
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 19:50 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
It also kind of bothers me that if a driver has no suspend/resume
functions, and you suspend and resume the system, we don't complain
about it even though there's a very good chance that device is not going
to function properly.
50 matches
Mail list logo
