From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (x64 thermal build failure) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:00:16 +0100 Message-ID: <20080219230016.5b7ff43d@crazy> References: <20080216002522.9c4bd0fb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080216211603.bb4f3582.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20080216214410.b9699910.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080218111536.511c4fbc@crazy> <20080218041340.f1e46ec9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080219165502.2c202759@crazy> <20080219094147.b9e0e99b.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080219094147.b9e0e99b.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Randy Dunlap Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, len.brown@intel.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, michael@free-electrons.com List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Le Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:41:47 -0800, Randy Dunlap a =C3=A9crit : > Does this patch apply to -mm? Seem like No. No, it was generated against 2.6.25-rc2. > After converting it from mime(?) to ASCII Probably due to my PGP-MIME signature. Will try to remember that I should disable it next time. > and fixing one #if (change "and" to "&&") Oops. Fixed on my side too. > & fixing patch rejects, it does build cleanly. The rejects are probably due to the patch being applied to -mm. It applies fine on -rc here. Any opinion about whether the patch is clean ? Worth it ? Thanks for testing the patch, Thomas --=20 Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons =46ree Embedded Linux Training Materials on http://free-electrons.com/training (More than 1500 pages!)