Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 16:11:48 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica acconfig.h acenv.h acfreebsd.h acgcc.h acpi.h acpiosxf.h acpixf.h acutils.h dbcmds.c dbxface.c exfldio.c exsystem.c hwsleep.c psparse.c rscreate.c tbget.c utglobal.c Message-ID: <XFMail.20030501161148.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20030501193258.GB778@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01-May-2003 Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:35:16PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >> >> > Modified files: >> > sys/contrib/dev/acpica acconfig.h acenv.h acfreebsd.h acgcc.h >> > acpi.h acpiosxf.h acpixf.h acutils.h >> > dbcmds.c dbxface.c exfldio.c exsystem.c >> > hwsleep.c psparse.c rscreate.c tbget.c >> > utglobal.c >> >> This hunk looks bogus as it didn't change during the Intel import: > *snip* >> Without this change make kernel-depend of LINT gives a _lot_ of >> warnings. LINT also doesn't compile, but this is at least a >> good first step. > > Unrelated to the change (hence removed), but related to ACPI CA > contributed code: > > There's a bug in the code that uninstalls ACPI tables. We have a > fix for this on the ia64 branch. Thanks to Peter. It's been forgotten, > but it would be nice to have this fix in as it hosed machines with > multiple SSDT tables. This is not specific to ia64. > > Of course, since this is contributed code we should get it fixed > at the source and it will find its way back to use with the next > upgrade. However, since the 0424 snapshot had problems, the first > possible upgrade would be end May, provided the problems have > been resolved. > > The question: do people think we should try to get another ACPI > snapshot in (provided we have someone willing to do it) and thus > try to get it fixed the "official" way or are we ok with changing > contrib'd code in this case and revert to the vendor branch when > we do upgrade sometime after 5.1? We have had files in ACPI land pulled off the branch before, so I think that if it's a major showstopper for 5.1 it can just be committed. I would send the patch to the acpi-jp@ list. The Intel guys follow it and are quite responsive to good bug reports and/or patches. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030501161148.jhb>