On Sunday, 29 of June 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > You may argue this is a regression, but this is simply the cost paid > > for progress -- the kernel stays within the spec as defined both by > > ACPI and MPS, we have just started using a different configuration now > > and an interrupt source override provided by the manufacturer > > explicitly states INTIN2 is good to use. In a sense you were simply > > lucky previously the kernel was bad enough with the way it configured > > the timer through the I/O APIC it failed completely avoiding the bug > > in your firmware. Now the bug has got uncovered. > > well as long as we eliminate the bad effects around via DMI exceptions > nobody will feel the need to argue whether it's a regression ;-) If all boxes affected by this particulare breakage are covered by DMI-based workarounds, they will continue to work and that won't be any regression. The point is that the patch should go along with such workarounds. > [this problem could be argued to be a regression, even if it's caused by > prior luck/stupidity of Linux. We have to live with the effects of our > mistakes.] That's exactly right. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
