Re: [patch] suspend/resume self-test

[Ingo Molnar]

* David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/