Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:

quoted

FWIW, I'm still leaning towards disabling libata ACPI support by default for
2.6.21.

Hey, I'm not going to argue against anything that says "disable ACPI". Of 
*course* it should be disabled if there aren't thousands of machines that 
are in user hands that actually need it (and none that regress).

It's required to access data at all (BIOS-supplied password [un]locks 
disk), in a small minority of configurations.  It's strongly suggested 
for reliable suspend/resume, particularly on laptops, where libata ACPI 
support fixes some suspend/resume problems.

Some BIOSen also want to apply drive+board-specific errata workarounds. 
  That's OK, but ideally we should know about those in the kernel.

"none that regress" is the problem though.  Buggy tables, unexercised 
ACPI code paths, and in a few cases unexpected post-ACPI 
drive/controller behavior expose regressions.

Anybody want to send me a patch?

Since everybody is OK with my plan, I'll send one today along with the 
rest of the post-vacation 2.6.21-rc bug fixes.

	Jeff