Yes, you are right.
But as I told: It was the least invasive method for me.
Applying it as a config option, would include adding a MODULE_PARM
section, which doesn't exist yet (not for me, I have ACPI compiled
into the kernel, but to keep it consistent even if compiled as
module). I'm not *that* proof with linux kernel source to guarantee
side-effect-freeness and so on.
This part I'd like to leave for developers knowing better, what
they're doing :)
However, if someone of the ACPI developers or someone of the
patch-acceptors (:)) tells me 'do it, we'll patch it in', I'll do
it.
If it has no chance to get in, I wont do it - for me myself, my
patch is quite enough :)
thanks for your response & regards,
Mario
-- Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe <Mario.Holbe@RZ.TU-Ilmenau.DE>"Why are we hiding from the police, daddy?" | J. E. Guenther "Because we use SuSE son, they use SYSVR4." | de.alt.sysadmin.recovery - 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/