[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803151315250.3020@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: ?ric Piel <Eric.Piel@...mplin-utc.net>
cc: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>, Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Markus Gaugusch <dsdt@...gusch.at>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [2.6.25-rc5-mm1] BUG: spinlock bad magic early during boot
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, ?ric Piel wrote:
>
> It's a pity, I had just nearly finished a new approach. Instead of
> relying on populate_rootfs() and the filesystem infrastructure, the new
> approach directly finds the file in the initramfs.
So that avoids the VFS layer issues, but it's still strictly much worse
than just having a run-time loading.
What's the problem with just loading a new DSDT later? Potentially as in
*much* later: including when user-space is all up-and-running?
For things like DVD install images, you'd quite possibly want to have a
few known-workaround DSDT images with the installer, and just say "ok, we
want to fix up this ACPI crap in order to get working suspend/resume" kind
of thing.
So what's the reason for pushing for this insanely-early workaround in the
first place, instead of letting user-space do something like
cat my-dsdt-image > /proc/sys/acpi/DSDT
or whatever at runtime?
Linus
--
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