From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:11:01 +0900 Message-ID: <475C0585.3090304@gmail.com> References: <200712080340.49546.rjw@sisk.pl> <20071208013631.3147986a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <475B90C7.4070505@gmail.com> <200712091520.04740.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.180]:25561 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750845AbXLIPLP (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 10:11:15 -0500 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so2752359wah for ; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 07:11:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <200712091520.04740.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> 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? Yeah, I'm hoping so. Maybe command filtering should wait till 2.6.25 but the rest, yeap. -- tejun