linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to lid_init

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]

Date:   Wed, 24 May 2017 10:08:30 +0200
From:   Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
        Jiri Eischmann <jeischma@...hat.com>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ACPI / button: Change default behavior to
 lid_init_state=open"

Hi Rafael,

On May 15 2017 or thereabouts, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> >> Benjamin, my understanding is that this is the case, is it correct?
> >> >
> >> > That is correct. This patch I reverted introduces regression for professional
> >> > laptops that expect the LID switch to be reported accurately.
> >>
> >> And from a user's perspective, what does not work any more?
> >
> > If you boot or resume your laptop with the lid closed on a docking
> > station while using an external monitor connected to it, both internal
> > and external displays will light on, while only the external should.
> >
> > There is a design choice in gdm to only provide the greater on the
> > internal display when lit on, so users only see a gray area on the
> > external monitor. Also, the cursor will not show up as it's by default
> > on the internal display too.
> >
> > To "fix" that, users have to open the laptop once and close it once
> > again to sync the state of the switch with the hardware state.
> 
> OK
> 
> Yeah, that sucks.
> 
> So without the Lv's patch the behavior (on the systems in question) is
> as expected, right?

Would you agree to take both these reverts without Lv's ACK? We already
tried to explain for 2 weeks that they are valuable, but it seems we
can't make change his mind.

I have more that 26 emails in my INBOX (not counting my replies) and I
would really like switching to more valuable work than explaining again
and again that when a regression is introduced, it needs to be fixed (or
reverted in that case).

Cheers,
Benjamin