From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.26-rc] ACPI Thermal Zone driver breaks lm-sensors 2 userspace Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:59:40 +0200 Message-ID: <20080624085940.3ee3bf77@hyperion.delvare> References: <48605935.5070407@shaw.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from zone0.gcu-squad.org ([212.85.147.21]:29538 "EHLO services.gcu-squad.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751768AbYFXHAH (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:00:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Robert Hancock , "Mark M. Hoffman" , Rene Herman , Hans de Goede , Zhang Rui , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, Linux Kernel Hi Linus, On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:07:15 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Robert Hancock wrote: > > Mark M. Hoffman wrote: > > > 2) This patch is broken. > > > > You didn't indicate what was wrong with the patch. > > Yes. Leaving everybody wondering whether it's just an opinionated > expression of the former problem, or whether there is a real and > understandable reason why it was NACK'ed. I guess Mark assumed that everybody had read the discussion thread Rene referenced, where I explained why his patch was broken: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/23/175 -- Jean Delvare From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:59:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 2.6.26-rc] ACPI Thermal Zone driver breaks Message-Id: <20080624085940.3ee3bf77@hyperion.delvare> List-Id: References: <48605935.5070407@shaw.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Robert Hancock , "Mark M. Hoffman" , Rene Herman , Hans de Goede , Zhang Rui , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, Linux Kernel Hi Linus, On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:07:15 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Robert Hancock wrote: > > Mark M. Hoffman wrote: > > > 2) This patch is broken. > > > > You didn't indicate what was wrong with the patch. > > Yes. Leaving everybody wondering whether it's just an opinionated > expression of the former problem, or whether there is a real and > understandable reason why it was NACK'ed. I guess Mark assumed that everybody had read the discussion thread Rene referenced, where I explained why his patch was broken: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/23/175 -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors