From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755187AbYBSOkn (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:40:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752609AbYBSOkf (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:40:35 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:40770 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752486AbYBSOke (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:40:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:40:05 +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: <20080219144005.GC21176@elte.hu> References: <20080130131748.GA3796@elf.ucw.cz> <200802180240.47510.david-b@pacbell.net> <20080218130914.GC17697@elte.hu> <200802181216.25350.david-b@pacbell.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200802181216.25350.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: > > 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" ;-) > > Thing is, this will catch not just regressions ... but cases where STR > never worked in the first place. Video problems, etc. Also various > system startup races, as in the PCMCIA and MMC/SD/SDIO cases I noted. yes, but that's not your problem, that's the STR folks' problem. > Right, and the best way to ensure that it's only *regressions* that > break things is to expect someone to have configured the kernel > command line appropriately (in grub or whatever). a simple .config flag is perfectly fine for that, as long as it's default disabled and properly demarked. We have literally _dozens_ of "dangerous" test options and _nobody_ complains about them being dangerous ... They do their primary job of triggering bugs sooner, faster and harder, resulting in bugs getting fixed sooner, faster and harder. > Another way to achieve that is to include the test code based on one > config option, and change the test *mode* based on another one. That > way a distro could include that in standard kernels with "no test" > mode as the default, but it would be easy to enable only for oneshot > tests or field troubleshooting ... while developers could turn on the > more dangerous "always test STR" (or standby, or hibernate) mode, if > they were helping to find and fix problems surfaced by such tests. no distro would enable this option, it just adds a needless 5-6 seconds delay to the bootup, and a needless "s2ram blows up sooner than it should" risk. _I_ want to enable this option, and want to see it trigger more often than just once out of a hundred randconfig setups. really, you are making rookie mistakes in this area and you are doing injustice to the code you wrote and maintain :-) As i said it before, externally it looks like as if you intentionally avoided your code from being used, from people who _want_ to use your code. _I_ had to fight for almost an hour (!) until i figured out the zillions of .config variants that were finally able to get my test-system to boot-time suspend and resume all by itself. It's totally non-obvious. As far as the general Linux community goes, it's almost as if your code did not even exist, so well hidden and obscured it is. Ingo