* Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > could make up for system that system have acpi problem or still > > > can mmconf and numa when acpi=off > > > > Greg, any deep objections against these patches? (other than that > > they need a good amount of testing) I personally think that the more > > independent the kernel is of the whims of the BIOS, the better ... > > No objection from me, other than they need a LOT of testing. [...]
ok - have queued it up for v2.6.26. Note: Andrew might get grumpy when your PCI tree starts changing nearby places in arch/x86/pci again and it clashes with these changes in x86.git - in that case please pick up the full lot from x86.git#testing and carry it in the PCI tree. (or, alternatively, send me any trivial, arch/x86-only PCI bits to x86.git#testing so that we can keep it and test it all in a single place - whichever approach is more convenient to you) > [...] Oh, and the networking patch is still wrong, and the poster has > been told this numerous times, which makes me wonder how well the pci > bridge patch was tested... i think the optimization should be more correct now than in the past, its purpose and dependencies just have not been communicated fully. We'll get there eventually :-) Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/