From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>
To: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz"
<linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Subject: Re: ACPI & 2.4 (Re: [BK PATCH] PCI Express patches for 2.4.27-pre3)
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 12:38:28 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040528153828.GC6804@logos.cnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1085756209.17693.108.camel@dhcppc4>
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 10:56:50AM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 08:09, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 03:35:34AM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
>
> > > I generally only have time to read LKML messages directed to me
> > > or if the word "ACPI" appears in the message, so I may have missed
> > > the word 2.4. What is the word?
> >
> > I dont get you? What you mean? (sorry)
>
> If you announced a change in policy for accepting 2.4 patches,
> then I missed it. So I'm assuming that since people are still
> complaining to me about bugs in 2.4, and we're all still fixing
> those bugs, that I should continue to submit those patches to you.
Perfect.
> I understand that we should not add any new features to 2.4,
> and that we should not undertake any significant code cleanups
> because the tolerance for risk is low.
Right.
> For these reasons, the ACPI code in 2.6 is starting to diverge
> from 2.4. However, large parts of the ACPI sub-system, such
> as the core intepreter and most of the configuration code,
> are very much the same betwen 2.4 and 2.6. For this reason
> I think the risk is low to integrate some relatively large
> ACPI patches into 2.4 -- as long as the same code has already
> been tested and released in 2.6.
Hum, fine. That sounds more conservative.
> So I can delay sending 2.4 patches until it is clear that they
> were successful in 2.6. The question I have is how long there
> will be a 2.4 release available for accepting those patches.
The policy now is to accept only bugfixes and support for new
hardware (eg new PCI ID's, new drivers). There will still be
a few v2.4 releases, just not with the same frequency as they have
been released in the past.
Does that answer your question?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-28 15:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <A6974D8E5F98D511BB910002A50A6647615FC676@hdsmsx403.hd.intel.com>
2004-05-26 7:35 ` ACPI & 2.4 (Re: [BK PATCH] PCI Express patches for 2.4.27-pre3) Len Brown
2004-05-26 7:37 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-05-26 14:45 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-05-28 12:09 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-05-28 14:56 ` Len Brown
2004-05-28 15:38 ` Marcelo Tosatti [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040528153828.GC6804@logos.cnet \
--to=marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com \
--cc=arjanv@redhat.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
--cc=willy@debian.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox