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 doe
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 exa
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
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 kern
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. I
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 l
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 l
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 o
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 compa
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 explic
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
> > shoul
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 tha
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 s
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 kn
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
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 bother
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 tho
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 properl
25 matches
Mail list logo
