linux-kernel - Re: [BISECTED 3.16-rc REGREGRESSION] backlight control stopped working

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFxYYKApOC+1TQkoxSzi-zTSB8OmkU=ypvNb_Gc2+K6Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:24:16 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:	Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [BISECTED 3.16-rc REGREGRESSION] backlight control stopped working

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> This *not* a regression, it is an intended behavior change [..]

That counts as a regression.

If things used to work, and they don't work, it's a regression. If
it's intentional, that just makes it worse.

> Yes this may break existing configurations for some users, most likely
> users running some custom setup, who thus should be able to fix things
> by adding one more customization to there setup.

.. and apparently this whole paragraph is completely bogus. It *does*
break things, and for normal people. That's what the bug report is all
about. So don't waffle about it.

Bjørn, what's your setup? Is this perhaps solvable some other way?

> TL;DR: This change really is for the better and is here to stay.

Wrong. We don't break existing setups, and your attitude needs fixing.

Rafael, please get it reverted, or I will have to revert it. We have
*long* had a rule that we don't break things "in order to improve
things for others", and quite frankly, power management and ACPI in
particular was exactly *why* that rule was introduced, because the
whole "one step back, two steps forward" model does not work.

The problem needs to be solved some other way, and developers need to
f*cking stop with the "we can break peoples setups" mentality./

Hans, seriously. You have the wrong mental model. Fix it.

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