From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "P. Christeas" Subject: Re: ACPI source release updated (20030328) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:11:48 +0200 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <200303291811.48633.p_christ@hol.gr> References: <20030329151604.GA19676@hell.org.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20030329151604.GA19676-DETuoxkZsSqrDJvtcaxF/A@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: Karol Kozimor Cc: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > Thus wrote Grover, Andrew: > > Fixed a problem where the error message "Failed to acquire semaphore" > > would appear during operations on the embedded controller (EC). > > Thanks for that! > I have one question though. Did you consider doing incremental ACPI > patches? I'm using a heavily patched kernel with XFS filesystem support, > and getting all these patches to work and applying all the rejects manually > is a real pain. Incremental patches would really make life (mine, at least) > easier. What do you think about it? > > (the above refers to the 2.4 kernel, with 2.5 changing so fast it isn't > really a problem) > > Best regards, I had thought of asking that as well. But it may be a pain for Andrew to make those. If you have all the source-patches you've used, you might be able to do that yourself. Just get the 'original' 2.4, patch it with 2 different ver's of ACPI and diff those.. Then you could apply that diff as a patch to your 'overloaded' ver of 2.4. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en