From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758468AbXEWMvT (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 08:51:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755043AbXEWMvI (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 08:51:08 -0400 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:42548 "EHLO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754564AbXEWMvG (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 08:51:06 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: YUrnHmKwWfE1yr1hOr3s3wOyj7hegHo5k+G1hzs6x+C2 1179924665 Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 09:51:00 -0300 From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh To: Ray Lee Cc: Matt Mackall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: 2.6.21-mm2: ACPI exception on resume Message-ID: <20070523125100.GA826@khazad-dum.debian.net> References: <20070519204504.GA24704@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20070519223843.GN11115@waste.org> <20070520035259.GA13224@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20070521222339.GF11115@waste.org> <20070521230349.GA645@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20070522224515.GW11115@waste.org> <20070523001943.GA3743@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20070523014825.GX11115@waste.org> <20070523041958.GA15952@khazad-dum.debian.net> <2c0942db0705222141se133553re06370476d436b12@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2c0942db0705222141se133553re06370476d436b12@mail.gmail.com> X-GPG-Fingerprint: 1024D/1CDB0FE3 5422 5C61 F6B7 06FB 7E04 3738 EE25 DE3F 1CDB 0FE3 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 22 May 2007, Ray Lee wrote: > On 5/22/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > >> I shouldn't have to upgrade my BIOS to work with a new kernel any more > >> than I should have to upgrade my browser. > > > >We don't agree there, as you are not talking about a stable kernel series. > > Ah, so you're planning on submitting these patches for 2.7 then? 2.6 > is perpetually stable. Matt is quite correct; feel free to ask for > clarifications from Linus et al if you need guidance. 2.6.x.y is stable. 2.6.x is not by any reasonably strict definition of stable. Unless you can explain how the stuff that went in 2.6.21 could be added to a stable series kernel, do not even bother replying. And for the record, the patches are NOT mine, but since I am the one usually dealing directly with thinkpad firmware, I jumped in to help debug things as a thinkpad firmware was *probably* to blame. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh