From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] drivers/acpi/: possible cleanups Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:30:35 -0500 Message-ID: <200501271830.36444.dtor_core@ameritech.net> References: <20050127110125.GE28047@stusta.de> <1106867060.2400.2297.camel@d845pe> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1106867060.2400.2297.camel@d845pe> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: Adrian Bunk , Alexey Y Starikovskiy , Robert Moore , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ACPI Developers List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 27 January 2005 18:04, Len Brown wrote: > Thanks for the patch Adrian. >=20 > I agree that this is the right direction to go -- enforcing APIs with > the use of static reduces the possibility of programming errors -- > particularly with many cooks in the kitchen. =C2=A0Indeed, just on Mo= nday we > discussed a patch from Alexey Starikovskiy to do the same thing. >=20 > The problem is one of logistics. > As I've described before, the files with "R. Byron Moore" at the top = are > dual-licensed so Intel can distribute the core interpreter both as GP= L > to Linux and also to FreeBSD, HP-UX etc Well, I can not speak for Adrian but if I were to submit a patch and st= ate that it is also dual licensed you should have no troubles applying it e= ven to the core files, right? =20 --=20 Dmitry