On Thursday 28 January 2010 11:20:04 am Yinghai Lu wrote: > On 01/28/2010 08:09 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Wednesday 27 January 2010 10:53:51 pm Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> On 01/27/2010 08:26 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:34 -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > > >>>> 2. how about when apci is disabled? > >>> > >>> When ACPI is disabled, I think we just have to accept that we lose some > >>> functionality. I don't see the need for alternate ways to accomplish > >>> everything that ACPI does. It's becoming less and less useful to > >>> disable ACPI; I think it's only interesting as a debugging tool, and > >>> even then it's a sledgehammer. > >> > >> some systems when acpi is enabled could have interrupt storm. > >> and have to disable acpi. > > > > We should fix that problem rather than just covering it up by > > disabling ACPI. Can you provide any details? > that is not covering problem. acpi just cause too many problems. > > systems using acpi hotplug support, and use acpi aml code to monitor the hotplug status instead of HW > and after one or two days will have interrupt storm with sci/acpi interrupt aka 9. If you just want to whine about problems without helping us figure them out and fix them, I think there's another mailing list for that. I really don't have time to deal with unsubstantiated rumor-mongering like this. Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
