Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Sunday, 9 of December 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> Subject		: PATA scan: ACPI Exception AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT... is beyond end of object
> >> Submitter	: Hans de Bruin <bruinjm@xs4all.nl>
> >> References	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9320
> >> Handled-By	: Robert Moore <Robert.Moore@intel.com>
> >> 		  Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
> >> 		  Fu Michael <michael.fu@intel.com>
> >> Patch		: 
> >>
> > 
> > A number of other people are seeing the same thing and Tejun is
> > putting in a blacklist of machines which cannot use libata+acpi.
> > That patch is not yet in any git tree which I pull.
> > 
> > AFACIT the machines kepe working OK - there's just some nasty dmesg
> > spew.
> > 
> > If any machines _are_ breaking then this could cause real problems
> > and I'd prefer that we either go for a whitelist or arrange to
> > detect the condition and fall back to non-acpi ata.
> 
> The pending patchset should make ATA ACPI quite resistant to failures.

Are you going to push it for 2.6.24?

> Known bad boards can be blacklisted (currently only one is on the
> list), ATA ACPI is disabled quicker if ACPI evalution fails, execution
> errors are handled better and commands which are intended to help the
> vendor instead of the user are filtered.  So, I think we have enough
> safety nets.

Sounds good.  :-)

Thanks,
Rafael