From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761403AbYBRNJv (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:09:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752318AbYBRNJn (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:09:43 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:60092 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754775AbYBRNJm (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:09:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:09:14 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Brownell Cc: Pavel Machek , rjw@sisk.pl, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [patch] suspend/resume self-test Message-ID: <20080218130914.GC17697@elte.hu> References: <20080130131748.GA3796@elf.ucw.cz> <20080218094650.GA31970@elte.hu> <20080218095325.GA7198@elf.ucw.cz> <200802180240.47510.david-b@pacbell.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <200802180240.47510.david-b@pacbell.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * David Brownell wrote: > > >   - Includes a command line parameter, which needs work yet ... it > > >     currently turns this test off, but it should also let the target > > >     state be specified (and maybe even default to "no test"). > > I think "no test" should be the default; STR working sanely on x86 is > unfortunately too much a surprise. Someone more active in PM testing > should update that. All i'm asking for is to make the self-test easily accessible. Not for it to blow up in the face of users who do not ask for it. And, at least to me, there seems to be a rather apparent correlation between "suspend/resume regressions caught as early as possible" and the future, desired state of: "STR working sanely on x86" ;-) You really seem to treat S2R suckiness as a fact of life, but it isnt. Yes, it's a hard field for a number of reasons, but we could be doing _a lot_ better. One of them would be this "notice s2r breakage when i create or add the patch that breaks it" angle. Ingo