Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S264907AbSLFQoA>; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:44:00 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S264788AbSLFQmi>; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:42:38 -0500
Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:23309 "EHLO
	atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S264786AbSLFQm3>; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:42:29 -0500
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:50:04 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
To: "Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com>
Cc: "'Arjan van de Ven'" <arjanv@redhat.com>, marcelo@conectiva.com.br,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acpi-devel@sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates
Message-ID: <20021206165004.GE7961@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <EDC461A30AC4D511ADE10002A5072CAD04C7A576@orsmsx119.jf.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <EDC461A30AC4D511ADE10002A5072CAD04C7A576@orsmsx119.jf.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1541
Lines: 36

Hi!

> 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/