On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:00:59AM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > Most stuff that gets fixed by these workarounds would make no sense to > backport, because backports are much too intrusive, e.g.: Many of the workarounds really aren't that hard to backport, and the reality is after the distro locks down their kernel version in stone, and people start complaining about buggy support for the X300 laptop, or some such, the temptation will be *very* high to put in special hacks in the thinkpad_acpi driver for some bleeding edge new laptop by backporting code from a newer kernel, or grabbing a patch which is being discussed on the linux-thinkpad list, etc. So I don't think it's a good idea to assume that a single kernel version string such as 2.6.25 will have any reliability whatsoever about identifying what sort of driver workarounds might or might not be present given a particular distribution or custom kernel compiled by a user. (I normally pull in the acpi test tree into my kernels, so often my "2.6.25" kernel will have stuff that might not show up until 2.6.26.) Regards, - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
