From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753201Ab0EHANN (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2010 20:13:13 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:46941 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750850Ab0EHANM (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2010 20:13:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 17:10:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" cc: Len Brown , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [git pull request] ACPI patches for 2.6.34-rc6 In-Reply-To: <201005080203.30634.rjw@sisk.pl> Message-ID: References: <201005080117.23760.rjw@sisk.pl> <201005080203.30634.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 8 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > To calrify, I think the approach in the Matthew's patch is correct, but since I have > some bad experience with that particular thing, I prefer to make that change in > 2.6.35 and then move on to drop the flag entirely. Oh,yes. I'm not suggesting we do it late in the -rc cycle. I just don't think the DMI table is a good idea, so in the longer run I wan tto get rid of it, rather than have it grow (by quite a few entries, in this case). There are valid reasons for DMI tables in many cases, but in this case I think the reason is simply that we do the wrong thing, so then we ended up with a DMI table to "fix" the wrong thing we do. Linus