Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1178315
| From | Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync() |
| Date | 2015-07-07 12:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pJyiv-4rH-33@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <pIO5Z-W8-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <pJ1cS-r0-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <pJcrD-7pH-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <pJeMO-Ah-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon 2015-07-06 15:59:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, July 06, 2015 01:06:45 PM Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Mon 2015-07-06 01:28:20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 04, 2015 10:19:55 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > > > On Sat, 4 Jul 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > The only argument against dropping sys_sync() from the suspend code path > > > > > I've seen in this thread that I entirely agree with is that it may lead to > > > > > regressions, because we've done it practically forever and it may hide latent > > > > > bugs somewhere in block drivers etc. Dropping it, though, is the only way > > > > > to see those bugs, if any, and if we want to ever fix them, we need to see > > > > > them. That's why I think that it may be a good idea to allow people to > > > > > drop it if they are willing to accept some extra risk (via the kernel > > > > > command line, for example). > > > > > > > > I'd be perfectly happy to have the sync selectable at runtime, one way > > > > or another. The three most reasonable options seem to be: > > > > > > > > kernel command line > > > > > > > > sysfs file > > > > > > > > sysctl setting > > > > > > > > The command line is less flexible (it can't be changed after booting). > > > > Either of the other two would be fine with me. > > > > > > We'll probably use a sysfs file (possibly plus a Kconfig option to set the > > > boot time default). > > > > Android people can already do sync-less s2ram using existing > > interface. IMO they should just do it. > > > > In any case, sysfs file + Kconfig is an overkill. We already have too > > many Kconfig options. > > I don't think we can reach a general agreement on what's the *right* approach > with respect to the sys_sync() in the suspend code path, so the only way out > of this situation I can see is to make it configurable. So first: not having general agreement does not mean we should introduce Kconfig + sysfs file. Second: your proposal of "lets sync if runtime was shorter than xxx" is over complex, but at least should not need Kconfig support... Third: we have ioctl() based interface, and I guess android should use that one; it already has "s2ram without sync" method. > > There's not a single Android phone supported by mainline > > kernel. I'm sure they have bigger problems than Android setting > > default sysfs values... > > But perhaps we'd like to change that? We'd like to, but lets start with the real hard stuff (merging support for Qualcomm chipsets) that is 1000000 LoC+, not with trivial tweaks that would be 1-line change, but we pollute code with Kconfig+sysfs making it 100.. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync() Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2015-07-03 03:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync() "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2015-07-04 02:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync() Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2015-07-05 11:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync() Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2015-07-07 12:30 +0200
csiph-web