Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
FWIW, I'm still leaning towards disabling libata ACPI support by default for
2.6.21.
Hey, I'm not going to argue against anything that says "disable ACPI". Of
*course* it should be disabled if there aren't thousands of machines that
are in user hands that actually need it (and none that regress).
It's required to access data at all (BIOS-supplied password [un]locks
disk), in a small minority of configurations. It's strongly suggested
for reliable suspend/resume, particularly on laptops, where libata ACPI
support fixes some suspend/resume problems.
Some BIOSen also want to apply drive+board-specific errata workarounds.
That's OK, but ideally we should know about those in the kernel.
"none that regress" is the problem though. Buggy tables, unexercised
ACPI code paths, and in a few cases unexpected post-ACPI
drive/controller behavior expose regressions.
Anybody want to send me a patch?
Since everybody is OK with my plan, I'll send one today along with the
rest of the post-vacation 2.6.21-rc bug fixes.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
