Message-ID: <EDC461A30AC4D511ADE10002A5072CAD04C7A56B@orsmsx119.jf.intel.com>
From: "Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com>
To: "'Arjan van de Ven'" <arjanv@redhat.com>, marcelo@conectiva.com.br
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:39:18 -0800 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1319
Lines: 31

> From: Arjan van de Ven [mailto:arjanv@redhat.com] 
> Marcelo,
> 
> Please don't merge this. This patch removes existing, small, working,
> maintained functionality from the kernel and "replaces" it with
> something else for which patches aren't even accepted and 
> that is a lot
> bigger and less readable code.
> 
> Not only is it rude on the side of the ACPI people to remove 
> "competing"
> functionality, but it will break all kinds of existing setups that now
> have to change the way they configure their system. In 
> addition it's not
> even needed, the existing code can live together with the code Andrew
> proposes just fine as the United Linux kernel proves.

The ACPI code's CPU-enumeration-only config option does what acpitable.[ch]
did. This has been in 2.5 for a long time, so this would unify the 2.4 and
2.5 approaches.

Is your concern with the code, or the cmdline option? We could certainly
keep the same cmdline option "acpismp=force" if that is the issue, but that
always seemed like kind of a strange name for the option, to me.

Regards -- Andy
-
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/