[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <460966F2.4010307@garzik.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:48:18 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen.c.accardi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: ATA ACPI (was Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc5)
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm still leaning towards disabling libata ACPI support by default for
>> 2.6.21.
>
> Hey, I'm not going to argue against anything that says "disable ACPI". Of
> *course* it should be disabled if there aren't thousands of machines that
> are in user hands that actually need it (and none that regress).
It's required to access data at all (BIOS-supplied password [un]locks
disk), in a small minority of configurations. It's strongly suggested
for reliable suspend/resume, particularly on laptops, where libata ACPI
support fixes some suspend/resume problems.
Some BIOSen also want to apply drive+board-specific errata workarounds.
That's OK, but ideally we should know about those in the kernel.
"none that regress" is the problem though. Buggy tables, unexercised
ACPI code paths, and in a few cases unexpected post-ACPI
drive/controller behavior expose regressions.
> Anybody want to send me a patch?
Since everybody is OK with my plan, I'll send one today along with the
rest of the post-vacation 2.6.21-rc bug fixes.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists