From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: state of some x86 acpi patches Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:45:16 -0800 Message-ID: <4980EE0C.4070308@goop.org> References: <4947FF4C.80706@goop.org> <20081216192534.GB843@elte.hu> <495C677F.6080707@goop.org> <20090102153957.GA1180@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:57287 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758254AbZA1XpT (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:45:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090102153957.GA1180@elte.hu> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Len Brown , Yinghai Lu , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > yes, that end result is the desired state of things. We did run with this > for several months and resolved all the cases that needed fixing, but > dropped them when the ACPI tree moved out from under us. > > Can resurrect it if Len feels OK about the concept. Len, you shouldnt > worry about conflicts - we can do it after the ACPI changes of this merge > window are upstream so there should be no conflict trouble at all. How > does that sound? > Doesn't look like these changes made it in this time. Did they get overlooked, or did some other problem come up? Or did you want me to dig them up? Thanks, J