linux-kernel - Re: [git pull request] ACPI patches for 2.6.34-rc6

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005071708010.901@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 7 May 2010 17:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull request] ACPI patches for 2.6.34-rc6

On Sat, 8 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> To calrify, I think the approach in the Matthew's patch is correct, but since I have
> some bad experience with that particular thing, I prefer to make that change in
> 2.6.35 and then move on to drop the flag entirely.

Oh,yes. I'm not suggesting we do it late in the -rc cycle. 

I just don't think the DMI table is a good idea, so in the longer run I 
wan tto get rid of it, rather than have it grow (by quite a few entries, 
in this case).

There are valid reasons for DMI tables in many cases, but in this case I 
think the reason is simply that we do the wrong thing, so then we ended up 
with a DMI table to "fix" the wrong thing we do.

			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/