On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:12:45 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:42:50 +0800, Lin Ming wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I have no objection for an upstream patch, but the main problem we have > > > at the moment is with already released kernels. Versions 2.6.39, 3.0 > > > and 3.1 currently have a regression as the ACPI resource conflict > > > checks are inefficient, and this allows conflicting drivers to be > > > loaded together. So you are free to reimplement things differently in > > > version 3.2 and later, but for these 3 older versions we need the > > > smallest possible patch, so that it is accepted in stable branches. > > > > > > In other words, I would like two patches, one just adding back the code > > > that was accidentally dropped, and a second one moving things around if > > > you think it makes sense (and I tend to agree.) That way we can easily > > > backport only the first patch to kernel versions 2.6.39 to 3.1. > > > > Sure. > > > > I have send out the patch. > > > > [PATCH] ACPICA: Put back the call to acpi_os_validate_address > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=132257617527119&w=2 > > Perfect, thank you! I still don't see this important fix upstream. Len, can you please get it there quickly, so that it can propagate to stable kernels from there? Thanks, -- Jean Delvare -- 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
