On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:42:24 +0200 Eric Sandeen
Joshua C. wrote:
> ok guys,
> then it is up to whether the patch is "clean" enough to go in
> mainstream kernel.
Yes, that is basically it.
> I think the decision about a custom dsdt table in the kernel has
> been taken long time ago. and the answer is the option that
> the kernel to load a custom table. what the patch does is that
> pospones the loading of the table until the initram is loaded.
> the custom dsdt can be read from it.
> If someone thinks the patch isn't good enough, then he should
> suggest his own patch. but for now this is the only one
> Either in the kernel or in the initram, in both cases we can
> our custom dsdt table. the only difference is that the kernel
> recompilation takes about 30 mins (compared to the 2mins for the
> repacking of the initram). I really don't see any objections to
> simplifying this process.
> Please, prove me wrong, but I'm just trying to make it easier to
> run linux on my machine. And the patch simlifies this process.
There's really nothing to prove. Fedora isn't in the business of
maintaining patches not in upstream for long periods of time; it
Fedora because of the maintenance load, and it hurts the kernel in
general because the problem isn't being fixed at the source.
So if there's something you need, find a way to help it get
Probably the best thing you could do would be to email the patch
test the patch he plans to submit next time, and when he does,
with the fact that it works well for you. If people have concerns
ways it might break, see if you can break it in those ways, etc.
I do understand that the functionality provided by the patch makes
life easier, but these things have to be done in maintainable
looks like there's a decent chance the patch will be upstream
we can all be happy. :)
fedora-devel-list mailing list
I tried it (v.0.9) and it worked for me without any issues.
Smart Girls Secret Weapon
Read Unbiased Beauty Product Reviews, Get Helpful Tips, Tricks and Sam