From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: update win8 OSI blacklist Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 01:53:55 +0100 Message-ID: <20131007005355.GA22211@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20131006204518.GA20077@srcf.ucam.org> <20131006205928.GA20296@srcf.ucam.org> <20131006233106.GA21562@srcf.ucam.org> <20131006235702.GA21738@srcf.ucam.org> <20131007003247.GA21999@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:57268 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755124Ab3JGAx6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:53:58 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , "Rafael J. Wysocki" On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 07:50:18PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > I don't get the final > > say in whether or not this patch gets merged, but there's a decent > > chance that I'm going to be the one who has to remove the entries again > > once the backlight mess is fixed up. My life would be significantly > > easier if the entries are unambiguously identified in such a way that I > > can remove them without having to dig through git history to figure out > > where each came from. > > And a *single* comment on top of this group entries achieves that just > fine. You haven't provided a single argument as to why that wouldn't > be the case. No, it demonstrably doesn't. The comments that do exist refer to only a subset of the entries underneath them. Having a per-entry comment is significantly clearer. Given that I have to delete things from this file and you don't, I have absolutely no idea why you refuse to believe me on this. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org