From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1163604AbcG0XSk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:18:40 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f65.google.com ([209.85.218.65]:36606 "EHLO
	mail-oi0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1163096AbcG0XSe (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:18:34 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4745197.6nnjR21Chc@vostro.rjw.lan>
References: <5798BB14.9090606@cantab.net> <CA+55aFyYXv6VkO4=7PjsT0H1dvaa6Byftkc=2VpHg9GN7RbpqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <d1538de2-5819-7d67-4e6e-00564bbcbe2b@citrix.com> <4745197.6nnjR21Chc@vostro.rjw.lan>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 16:18:32 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9dD7Mh8bCamCQoPz0PoL3KyOBjY
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxHGYMUMR3vzYA6=-dH2dORoRWGn2YJQoADO2JM3+MNPw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL] xen: features and fixes for 4.8-rc0
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
        David Vrabel <dvrabel@cantab.net>,
        Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>
> The STAO definition document:
>
> http://wiki.xenproject.org/mediawiki/images/0/02/Status-override-table.pdf
>
> requires as to "operate as if that device does not exist", quite literally.

Well, first off, documentation is one thing, actually changing
behavior is something entirely different.

Theory and practice are *not* the same.

The other worry I have is that I'd be happier if it's still visible in
/sys/bus/acpi/ etc. Again, it's one thing to not react to it
programmatically, and another thing entirely to actually hide the
information from the rest of the system.

If I read that patch right, it will be hidden from sysfs too. But
Maybe I'm mistaken.

             Linus