From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI:remove panic in case hardware has changed after S4 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:44:32 +0200 Message-ID: <3112212.MYoOumbSqn@linux-5eaq.site> References: <1373544870-15135-1-git-send-email-oliver@neukum.org> <5742401.D3Ye1zZPh5@linux-5eaq.site> <2772497.7moIZd7YLR@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53149 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753757Ab3GPKQN (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 06:16:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <2772497.7moIZd7YLR@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: joeyli , Thomas Renninger , lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Monday 15 July 2013 13:40:09 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, July 15, 2013 01:29:47 PM Oliver Neukum wrote: > > On Friday 12 July 2013 16:45:15 joeyli wrote: > > > > > Per information from OEM, Windows 8 didn't really block S4 resume when > > > hardware_signature not match, I think as Oliver's patch. > > > > Is that confidential information? > > > > If it is indeed true, introducing a blacklist makes no sense. And I > > see no alternative to my patch. Should I resubmit with an improved > > comment? > > Yes, it would be good to update the changelog with this info. Done. Regards Oliver