On 02-12-07 14:34, Thomas Renninger wrote:
On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 01:33 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
On 01-12-07 00:52, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
I agree this is probably safe in the current implementation.
However, I think the current implementation is just broken because
we can't really handle hotplug of ACPI devices. Specifically, I think
the first TBD in acpi_bus_check_device() should be fleshed out so it
does something like pnpacpi_add_device().
So my dissenting opinion is that this patch would just get reverted
soon anyway when somebody finishes implementing ACPI hotplug, and
therefore it's not worth doing.
<shrug>
The PnPBIOS bits should still be fine at least I guess. And, it would seem
this is rather essential to Thomas' efforts of making this stuff dynamic in
the first place anyway.
No it is not. It is just another optimization I saw while going through
these code parts...
Bjorn's argument of making the possible resources runtime dynamic is the
essential bit, not the patch. You weren't doing that in the simple scheme
you've outlined till now. Are you or is anyone else now after all?
Rene.
--
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
