On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 07:35:45PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 07:30:35PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > Properly resolved by whom? It sounds like you're up for intentionally
> > allowing a userspace regression, and also volunteering other people's
> > time into fixing that regression? The way I understand the kernel
> > development process is that the person proposing a change is responsible
> > for not intentionally causing regressions, and if one is pointed out, a
> > v+1 of that patch is provided that doesn't cause the regression.
> If you think the code does not work when the system frequently suspends
> and resumes, then well it is broken already, as that can happen just
> as much on non-Android systems.

I don't know how you arrived at that sentence or conclusion. The
regression I'm referring to in that paragraph is the one that *your*
patch would introduce were it to be applied.

The code currently does work well on Android devices. These very
messages are transiting through it, even.


Reply via email to