DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=HCb68VchpmnLB4B/taDyhyqTshUEsbQ0/lIetEpc67dpCFmNrD6BxQpVRmiR1DKak7
         yB23lyQG7MQflBTpClEfnvlhsgYv7KwrwMeY4vkB2wwSmroPfM8VaXypYSjlx6oAXRlc
         EMjY41KcZFAzt0FOBTxf/IdXX/IW0Kh0DTsp0=
Message-ID: <86802c440808232044i1670857bx194f4944bff6080a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:44:32 -0700
From: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
To: "David Witbrodt" <dawitbro@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: HPET regression in 2.6.26 versus 2.6.25 -- found another user with the same regression
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
       "Linux-kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <558013.68193.qm@web82107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <558013.68193.qm@web82107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1685
Lines: 45

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 7:39 PM, David Witbrodt <dawitbro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>> > (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?
yes.
>
> - 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?)

after the patch get into linus tree. Greg will put the patch into 2.6.26.X

>
> - 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.

this patch should be safe.

2.6.26 is fixing one bug about reserving local apic address and that
in e820 table.
and it reveals one bios bug.

YH
--
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/