Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751342AbVIHIL2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Sep 2005 04:11:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751344AbVIHIL2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Sep 2005 04:11:28 -0400 Received: from fmr15.intel.com ([192.55.52.69]:50381 "EHLO fmsfmr005.fm.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751342AbVIHIL1 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Sep 2005 04:11:27 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: [GIT PATCH] ACPI for 2.6.14 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 04:11:06 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [GIT PATCH] ACPI for 2.6.14 Thread-Index: AcW0R8k61XKcCzCTSTylwYojt55eDQAAU9nQ From: "Brown, Len" To: "Andrew Morton" Cc: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2005 08:11:10.0331 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF17A4B0:01C5B44C] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2142 Lines: 60 >There are a few bugs which I'd identified as arising from the acpi tree >while it was in -mm. Is this patch likely to drag them into mainline? > >They include: > > >http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4977 > Summary: ACPI 20050708 fails on HP RX2600 platform This was filed against ACPICA 20050708 which had a known problem with module-level code. The ACPI patch now contains ACPICA 20050902 which fixes that issue, and this system needs to be re-tested with the latest patch. >http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4867 > Summary: bug in ACPI crashes machine when reading > /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/THRM/temperature UNREPRODUCIBLE. test system died and is no longer available. >http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4980 > Summary: krash on entering mem sleep The submitter confirmed that suspend to memory now works on this box. The remaining issue on this box is related to the EC and battery, and we're getting contradictory feedback on it. Frankly, I think we need broader testing, and pushing the latest ec code into 2.6.14 now is the best way to get that. If it turns out to be a mistake we can always turn back time and revert drivers/acpi/ec.c to the one that shipped in 2.6.12 -- but the one in the latest patch has proven to be superior to 2.6.13 on other systems. >Plus we have all the battery monitor woes, but they're in >2.6.13 already. Re: 2.6.13 regressions vs 2.6.12, I'm aware of these: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5165 smp c-states on Pentium 4 with hyperthreading causes big slow-down http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5171 2.6.13 SMP kernel crash on boot at pm_idle_save() I saw lots of transient battery issues from 2.6.13-rc3 until 2.6.13-rc6, but the ones I followed went away as of 2.6.13 final. Do you have your eye on others besides 4980? thanks, -Len - 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/