Re: [PATCH] Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

Willy Tarreau
2007-02-11T13:57:08Z

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 +0000, 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 compatible. IMHO, it generally is a bad idea to require that
> > > > any driver explicitly states what it *does not* support. It's the reason
> > > > why users encounter problem on new features with old drivers. For instance,
> > > > do you know if the old ISA NE2000 driver breaks suspend ? I don't know,
> > > > but I would at least expect it not to support it by default. It's best
> > > > to announce what *is* supported and consider everything unimplemented
> > > > otherwise explicitly stated.
> > >
> > > This ignores the reality of the situation, which is that many drivers
> > > support suspend and resume despite the lack of any explicit
> > > implementation. Changing things so they're flagged as broken when
> > > they're not would be a regression.
> >
> > Those which are identified as OK should be flagged OK. Only those for
> > which we have no idea should be flagged broken.
>
> I think we don't need to flag the drivers identified as OK. Let's flag only
> the suspicious ones.
>
> Whatever we finally come up with, I'd like to avoid modifying drivers that are
> known good.

I understand your concerns, but the problem is not *current* drivers, but
what will happen to *new* drivers. If we make it implicit that a driver
is compatible, then new drivers will be promoted as good even if nothing
has been done for this.

Regards,
Willy