Re: ATA ACPI (was Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc5)

2007-03-28 Thread Tejun Heo
Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > So if you have reported a regression in the 2.6.21-rc series, please check 2.6.21-rc5, and update your report as appropriate (whether fixed or "still problems with xyzzy"). >>> [just got back from vacation, or would have sent this >>> earlier] >>

Re: ATA ACPI (was Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc5)

2007-03-28 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > >>So if you have reported a regression in the 2.6.21-rc > >>series, please check 2.6.21-rc5, and update your > >>report as appropriate (whether fixed or "still > >>problems with xyzzy"). > > > >[just got back from vacation, or would have sent this > >earlier] > > > >FWIW, I'm still leani

Re: ATA ACPI (was Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc5)

2007-03-27 Thread Jeff Garzik
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 th

Re: ATA ACPI (was Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc5)

2007-03-27 Thread Linus Torvalds
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 ha

Re: ATA ACPI (was Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc5)

2007-03-26 Thread Tejun Heo
Jeff Garzik wrote: Linus Torvalds wrote: There's various fixes here, ranging from some architecture updates (ia64, ARM, MIPS, SH, Sparc64) to KVM, networking and network drivers. And random one-liners. But probably more important, and likely much more visible to most people is the fixes for