From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263589AbUE1Ph6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 May 2004 11:37:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263574AbUE1Ph6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 May 2004 11:37:58 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:49285 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263467AbUE1Pho (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 May 2004 11:37:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 12:38:28 -0300 From: Marcelo Tosatti To: Len Brown Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Greg KH , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" Subject: Re: ACPI & 2.4 (Re: [BK PATCH] PCI Express patches for 2.4.27-pre3) Message-ID: <20040528153828.GC6804@logos.cnet> References: <1085556934.26254.132.camel@dhcppc4> <20040528120941.GB1400@logos.cnet> <1085756209.17693.108.camel@dhcppc4> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1085756209.17693.108.camel@dhcppc4> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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?