* Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > could make up for system that system have acpi problem or still
> > > can mmconf and numa when acpi=off
> >
> > Greg, any deep objections against these patches? (other than that
> > they need a good amount of testing) I personally think that the more
> > independent the kernel is of the whims of the BIOS, the better ...
>
> No objection from me, other than they need a LOT of testing. [...]
ok - have queued it up for v2.6.26. Note: Andrew might get grumpy when
your PCI tree starts changing nearby places in arch/x86/pci again and it
clashes with these changes in x86.git - in that case please pick up the
full lot from x86.git#testing and carry it in the PCI tree. (or,
alternatively, send me any trivial, arch/x86-only PCI bits to
x86.git#testing so that we can keep it and test it all in a single place
- whichever approach is more convenient to you)
> [...] Oh, and the networking patch is still wrong, and the poster has
> been told this numerous times, which makes me wonder how well the pci
> bridge patch was tested...
i think the optimization should be more correct now than in the past,
its purpose and dependencies just have not been communicated fully.
We'll get there eventually :-)
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
