From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: RFC: ACPI/scsi/libata integration and hotswap Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 12:46:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20051209114641.GH26185@suse.de> References: <20051208133945.GA21633@srcf.ucam.org> <20051208134438.GA13507@infradead.org> <1134062330.1732.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43989B00.5040503@pobox.com> <20051208133144.0f39cb37.randy_d_dunlap@linux.intel.com> <1134121522.27633.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051209103937.GE26185@suse.de> <1134125145.27633.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43996A26.8060700@pobox.com> <1134128127.27633.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1134128127.27633.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Erik Slagter Cc: Jeff Garzik , Randy Dunlap , hch@infradead.org, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 09 2005, Erik Slagter wrote: > I case this (still) isn't clear, I am addressing the attitude of "It's > ACPI so it's not going to be used, period". The problem seems to be that you are misunderstanding the 'attitude', which was mainly based on the initial patch sent out which stuffs acpi directly in everywhere. That seems to be a good trigger for curt/direct replies. -- Jens Axboe