From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Leo \"costela\" Antunes" Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: generic initramfs table override support #3 Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:08:03 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20091009195508.694274257@suse.com> <20091009195907.635574715@suse.com> <20091009201908.GA1139@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:58626 "EHLO lo.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752260AbZJJOKl (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:10:41 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Mwce4-0007QF-C0 for linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:10:04 +0200 Received: from p54bae2cf.dip.t-dialin.net ([84.186.226.207]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:10:04 +0200 Received: from costela by p54bae2cf.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:10:04 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20091009201908.GA1139@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Matthew Garrett wrote: > I'm really unenthusiastic about this. The majority of use cases appea= r=20 > to be people working around Linux bugs and never reporting the bugs t= o=20 > us, leaving everybody worse off. I can't judge the technical quality of the patch, but I don't think the social side of it is a problem (assuming I correctly understood the change in question). Case in point: I reported a problem[0] with the thermal/fan subsystems which was left unanswered and forced me to recompile kernels with overridden DSDTs for every new release expecting a fix and eventually replace the laptop in question. I'm obviously not demanding that my problem be solved, but the point is that not all problems can be solved in a timely fashion even when they are reported (for whatever reason: lack of manpower, lack of test machines, etc), so avoiding this change which could ease the testing of new DSDTs seems a bit sadistic. :) Another point of view to the same argument is that the current situatio= n doesn't guarantee feedback either. The added hassle of needing a recompile doesn't IMHO necessarily mean users report these sort of prob= lems. Just my technically inapt 0,2 =E2=82=AC. :) Cheers [0] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.acpi.devel/37612 --=20 Leo "costela" Antunes [insert a witty retort here] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html