> > 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/