All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
diff for duplicates of <530AED41.4060407@linaro.org>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 6fc66d2..fe67394 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -20,19 +20,19 @@ On 2014-2-22 18:33, Catalin Marinas wrote:
 >>
 >> OK, I'll drop [3/5] for now, then.
 > 
-> Thanks (it’s only temporary ;)).
+> Thanks (it?s only temporary ;)).
 > 
 >> I'm wondering, though, whose ACKs I should be waiting for before applying those
 >> patches?
 > 
 > Good question ;). In this particular case, there is an ongoing
-> discussion between Hanjun and Sudeep. While there isn’t anything
+> discussion between Hanjun and Sudeep. While there isn?t anything
 > major, I would like to see some agreement and potentially an Ack from
 > the other party involved in the discussion (Sudeep).
 > 
-> There are other patches that are not specific to ARM, so it’s
-> really your decision. As for the general ARM(64) ACPI case, I don’t
-> think we have anyone in charge with deciding what’s correct or not
+> There are other patches that are not specific to ARM, so it?s
+> really your decision. As for the general ARM(64) ACPI case, I don?t
+> think we have anyone in charge with deciding what?s correct or not
 > (BTW, who are the people active both in the _ARM_ Linux kernel community
 > and the ACPI standardisation forum?).
 
@@ -41,7 +41,3 @@ I'm in ASWG (ACPI spec working group) under UEFI, and Al Stone and Charles
 
 Thanks
 Hanjun
---
-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
-the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
-More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 490e899..4276825 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -3,20 +3,10 @@
  "ref\020140221182424.GA5751@arm.com\0"
  "ref\01408521.4TEdKhuRp5@vostro.rjw.lan\0"
  "ref\0F980FA86-6705-4A71-956C-EA2DBD787199@arm.com\0"
- "From\0Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>\0"
- "Subject\0Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] ACPI / processor_core: Rework _PDC related stuff to make it more arch-independent\0"
+ "From\0hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo)\0"
+ "Subject\0[PATCH v5 2/5] ACPI / processor_core: Rework _PDC related stuff to make it more arch-independent\0"
  "Date\0Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:57:05 +0800\0"
- "To\0Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>"
- " Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>\0"
- "Cc\0Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>"
-  graeme.gregory@linaro.org <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
-  patches@linaro.org <patches@linaro.org>
-  linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org <linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org>
-  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
-  linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
-  Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
-  linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
- " Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com>\0"
+ "To\0linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "On 2014-2-22 18:33, Catalin Marinas wrote:\n"
@@ -41,19 +31,19 @@
  ">>\n"
  ">> OK, I'll drop [3/5] for now, then.\n"
  "> \n"
- "> Thanks (it\342\200\231s only temporary ;)).\n"
+ "> Thanks (it?s only temporary ;)).\n"
  "> \n"
  ">> I'm wondering, though, whose ACKs I should be waiting for before applying those\n"
  ">> patches?\n"
  "> \n"
  "> Good question ;). In this particular case, there is an ongoing\n"
- "> discussion between Hanjun and Sudeep. While there isn\342\200\231t anything\n"
+ "> discussion between Hanjun and Sudeep. While there isn?t anything\n"
  "> major, I would like to see some agreement and potentially an Ack from\n"
  "> the other party involved in the discussion (Sudeep).\n"
  "> \n"
- "> There are other patches that are not specific to ARM, so it\342\200\231s\n"
- "> really your decision. As for the general ARM(64) ACPI case, I don\342\200\231t\n"
- "> think we have anyone in charge with deciding what\342\200\231s correct or not\n"
+ "> There are other patches that are not specific to ARM, so it?s\n"
+ "> really your decision. As for the general ARM(64) ACPI case, I don?t\n"
+ "> think we have anyone in charge with deciding what?s correct or not\n"
  "> (BTW, who are the people active both in the _ARM_ Linux kernel community\n"
  "> and the ACPI standardisation forum?).\n"
  "\n"
@@ -61,10 +51,6 @@
  "(+cc Charles) are also in this forum.\n"
  "\n"
  "Thanks\n"
- "Hanjun\n"
- "--\n"
- "To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe linux-acpi\" in\n"
- "the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org\n"
- More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
+ Hanjun
 
-d57ab4da547abe3b0b5a6f5e3b56e6eb88d8d3053f326edaeb5482ddf40ae594
+407361b7a03900b9a142fca02094511524cc0459829e3df2675c1b4ccfa59625

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N2/1.txt
index 6fc66d2..78301bf 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N2/1.txt
@@ -41,7 +41,3 @@ I'm in ASWG (ACPI spec working group) under UEFI, and Al Stone and Charles
 
 Thanks
 Hanjun
---
-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
-the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
-More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest
index 490e899..f869923 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N2/content_digest
@@ -61,10 +61,6 @@
  "(+cc Charles) are also in this forum.\n"
  "\n"
  "Thanks\n"
- "Hanjun\n"
- "--\n"
- "To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe linux-acpi\" in\n"
- "the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org\n"
- More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
+ Hanjun
 
-d57ab4da547abe3b0b5a6f5e3b56e6eb88d8d3053f326edaeb5482ddf40ae594
+774b415b334227c6ba304e453ad7336abbd7c38c04182fc47a0a2775130be354

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.