![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> FWIW, I'm still leaning towards disabling libata ACPI support by default for >> 2.6.21. > > Hey, I'm not going to argue against anything that says "disable ACPI". Of > *course* it should be disabled if there aren't thousands of machines that > are in user hands that actually need it (and none that regress). It's required to access data at all (BIOS-supplied password [un]locks disk), in a small minority of configurations. It's strongly suggested for reliable suspend/resume, particularly on laptops, where libata ACPI support fixes some suspend/resume problems. Some BIOSen also want to apply drive+board-specific errata workarounds. That's OK, but ideally we should know about those in the kernel. "none that regress" is the problem though. Buggy tables, unexercised ACPI code paths, and in a few cases unexpected post-ACPI drive/controller behavior expose regressions. > Anybody want to send me a patch? Since everybody is OK with my plan, I'll send one today along with the rest of the post-vacation 2.6.21-rc bug fixes. Jeff - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-03-27 20:51 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||