From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751182AbWGGDzX (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:55:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751177AbWGGDzW (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:55:22 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:64151 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751182AbWGGDzV (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:55:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:55:09 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Chris Wedgwood Cc: harmon@ksu.edu, vsu@altlinux.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: acpi gets wrong interrupt for via sata in 2.6.16.17 Message-Id: <20060706205509.4e4ae2ee.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060707034735.GA12908@tuatara.stupidest.org> References: <449DE6BA.2050206@ksu.edu> <20060625132457.4b0922b4.vsu@altlinux.ru> <44A1C78C.4090401@ksu.edu> <44ADAB1F.6040208@ksu.edu> <20060706181453.3ce5a1c5.akpm@osdl.org> <20060707034735.GA12908@tuatara.stupidest.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.17; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:47:35 -0700 Chris Wedgwood wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 06:14:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > I have both reversion patches queued up but haven't heard from > > anyone about anything. > > i saw that --- i don't think it's right, but it's not more wrong than > having that merged as-is in the first place which i'll argue is wrong > by virtue of the fact we run the quirk everywhere and apparently break > things > > > I don't know if anyone's working on this bug. > > it's not forgotten, i'm waiting to hear back from people still. > enabling ACPI *should* suffice, but for some people clearly it doesn't > (there are claims VIA got their ACPI wrong so this might explain why > it works for some people and not others) > > > Thursday is my subsystem-maintainer-spamming day, so the reverts > > will be heading Gregwards today. > > like i said, i really don't think reverting the patches is technically > correct, but given that i don't have adequate hardware to test against > it might be the least painful option right now Yes, it's a question of whose machines we choose to break. It'd be great to get this thing nailed. Do the people who are out testing things need re-asking?