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. Jason