> From: Arjan van de Ven [mailto:arjanv@redhat.com]
> > Is your concern with the code, or the cmdline option? We
> could certainly
>
> the code, not so much the commandline option (that one is not used
> in practice), but actually my biggest concern is that you
> break existing
> setups, or at least change it more than needed. There is ZERO need to
> remove the existing working (and lean) code, even though your
> code might
> also be able to do the same. It means people suddenly need to
> change all
> kinds of config options, it's different code so will work slightly
> different... unifying 2.5 is nice and all but there's no need for that
> here since both implementations can coexist trivially (as the
> United Linux
> kernel shows)
Well maybe that's what we should do - use the UnitedLinux ACPI patch (which
iirc is based on fairly recent ACPI code, and presumably minimizes
ACPI-related breakage) and then proceed incrementally from there?
Sound OK? Marcelo? UL folks?
Regards -- Andy
PS probably involve some work breaking out the ACPI stuff from the UL patch
as a whole, or maybe (???) the UL people already have it broken out?
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:17 EST