>"Brown, Len" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I saw lots of transient battery issues from 2.6.13-rc3 >> until 2.6.13-rc6, but the ones I followed went away >> as of 2.6.13 final. Do you have your eye on others >> besides 4980? > >Not specifically, but then ACPI bugs are the one sort which I >don't track. >a) because there are so many and b) because the ACPI team use bugzilla >well.
In the last 5 weeks we've reduced our unresolved bug count to 160 from 196 -- even as 50 new sightings rolled in: 9/8/05: 739 Resolved 160 Unresolved 899 Total 8/31/05: 733 Resolved 161 Unresolved 894 Total 8/24/05: 721 Resolved 166 Unresolved 887 Total 8/17/05: 694 Resolved 181 Unresolved 875 Total 8/10/05: 666 Resolved 194 Unresolved 860 Total 8/3/05: 653 Resolved 196 Unresolved 849 Total >Sticking "battery" into the bugzilla Summary field turns up a few. ><vague>There seem to have been four or five reports in recent weeks. <specific:-> We have a bugzilla category for battery issues. There are 12 open, 4 of them resolved -- 3 of those fixes are included in the proposed patch: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4892 through the ec_burst=1 fix is still optional: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3851 http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3974 I think it makes sense to proceed to get broader testing on the latest code. We're not getting new failure reports from -mm. Indeed, I'd like to try enabling the new ec_burst=1 by default in -mm. It is not perfect, but it works for me, so it should do much better than the 2.6.13-rc3 attempt. We'll keep ec_burst=0 as the default in Linus' tree for now. The systems that require ec_burst=1 will have to supply it manually for now, which is better than not having it all per 2.6.12. thanks, -Len - 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/
