Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753150AbYHXCjt (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:39:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751707AbYHXCjl (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:39:41 -0400 Received: from web82107.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.84.220]:23855 "HELO web82107.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751425AbYHXCjk (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:39:40 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=xqZN/OJX7f8JUkBxzIduEV+jKnhggY8+oqswzDBFvuLaNTkwvSKncK2Mg9JNFL7Gzwb2KRAMDWNIXxoa6UqMeIAgUAqVoVbA+WGVwHfBrW+E5+ZKaZlbpqahFBQlCDarlxeXHX8H8CvGCk7Wt1abeaT/bazUxRbADx+H2jmK4xQ=; X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1042.40 YahooMailWebService/0.7.218 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:39:39 -0700 (PDT) From: David Witbrodt Subject: Re: HPET regression in 2.6.26 versus 2.6.25 -- found another user with the same regression To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linux-kernel Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <558013.68193.qm@web82107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1380 Lines: 36 > > (BTW, just what kernel version were you using for those patches? The > > v2.6.27-rcX series place the patch's changes over 100 lines earlier > > than the line numbers indicated in your patches....) > > we are working on tip/master My mistake... sorry. Previously, Ingo had me doing things with tip/master, but usually you had me working with v2.6.27-rc3. I should have tried tip/master as soon as I saw the discrepancy. I have some questions about what happens next: - This fix will naturally make it into v2.6.27, maybe even as soon as v2.6.27-rc5, correct? - Is there any chance I can get it into the stable 2.6.26.X updates? (Who should I ask, or are only developers allowed to lobby for this sort of thing?) - Are you worried about the potential problems of a quirk-based approach? What if many more people experience a similar regression once 2.6.26 or later appears in their distribution? I'm sure you don't want to have to write a different quirk for each individual's hardware, and this problem did not arise with the approach used for resource management in 2.6.25. Thanks again Yinghai (and Ingo), Dave W. -- 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/