From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [git pull request] ACPI patches for 2.6.36.merge Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:21:53 -0700 Message-ID: <20100815182153.994179c1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20100815133015.883c7069.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:47026 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751891Ab0HPBWX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:22:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: sedat.dilek@gmail.com, Andi Kleen , len.brown@intel.com, Linux ACPI , LKML On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:04:09 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Andrew Morton > wrote: > > > > I'd be suspecting that we have two patches both of which worked > > separately but which broke when combined. =A0Is there some other pa= tch in > > that tree which adds a new reference to `ref' in acpi_power_seq_sho= w()? >=20 > The offending patch isn't about acpi_power_seq_show(), it's about > acpi_power_off_device(). The patch I sent Len patched acpi_power_seq_show(). >=20 > ... > > What does that say about the _rest_ of the patches? Not tested in combination? > What does that say about (lack of) -next testing? That code compiled OK in -mm which includes linux-next. I assume that some last-minute merging broke things. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html