From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: state of some x86 acpi patches Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:58:34 -0800 Message-ID: <498CF8DA.30004@goop.org> References: <4947FF4C.80706@goop.org> <20081216192534.GB843@elte.hu> <495C677F.6080707@goop.org> <20090102153957.GA1180@elte.hu> <4980EE0C.4070308@goop.org> <49810211.9030808@kernel.org> 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]:37956 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751675AbZBGC6h (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 21:58:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <49810211.9030808@kernel.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Ingo Molnar , Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Yinghai Lu wrote: > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > please check attached that are updated to today tip/master with ingo's genapic patchset.. > The look OK, but they didn't get merged into tip/master? J