Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:06:40 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates |
| |
Hi!
> > From: Arjan van de Ven [mailto:arjanv@redhat.com] > > > Is your concern with the code, or the cmdline option? We > > could certainly > > > > the code, not so much the commandline option (that one is not used > > in practice), but actually my biggest concern is that you > > break existing > > setups, or at least change it more than needed. There is ZERO need to > > remove the existing working (and lean) code, even though your > > code might > > also be able to do the same. It means people suddenly need to > > change all > > kinds of config options, it's different code so will work slightly > > different... unifying 2.5 is nice and all but there's no need for that > > here since both implementations can coexist trivially (as the > > United Linux > > kernel shows) > > Well maybe that's what we should do - use the UnitedLinux ACPI patch (which > iirc is based on fairly recent ACPI code, and presumably minimizes > ACPI-related breakage) and then proceed incrementally from there? > > Sound OK? Marcelo? UL folks? > > Regards -- Andy > > PS probably involve some work breaking out the ACPI stuff from the UL patch > as a whole, or maybe (???) the UL people already have it broken out?
I guess it will be better if you push acpi patch without killing those backup solutions. Extractign blacklist from UL might be worth it, through. Pavel -- Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala sourceforge.net. What goes next? Inserting advertisment *into* email? - 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/
| |