> I (Andy) said:
> > > 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?
>
> > 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.
>
> Well after communicating with Marcelo it sounds like he'd like to hold off
> taking it in 2.4.21 because IDE changes take priority, and two big changes
> at once is too many for a stable kernel revision.
>
> Fair enough. I'm just worried that 2.4.22 is a long ways away.
>
> Maybe one way to address Marcelo's stability concerns and Arjan's "keep
> acpitable.[ch] around" preference is for me to submit a patch that I *know*
> don't affect anything besides ACPI -- i.e. only the changes that have been
> made under drivers/acpi, and then go from there, submitting UL-derived and
> other improvements incrementally after that.
Yes, try that. Its certainly better than no ACPI update at all.
Pavel
-- Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building, cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic. - 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/