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? I think it's crazy to add code to work around Problem B that only occurs because we disabled ACPI to work around Problem A. We should just fix Problem A instead. Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
