From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Jenkins Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: battery: Fix CONFIG_ACPI_SYSFS_POWER=n Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:22:00 +0100 Message-ID: <4AA7E438.4070905@tuffmail.co.uk> References: <4A4A219C.2020802@tuffmail.co.uk> <1252339562.28499.13.camel@maxim-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.78.27]:12848 "EHLO ey-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752479AbZIIRWC (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:22:02 -0400 Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 25so1277324eya.19 for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:22:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1252339562.28499.13.camel@maxim-laptop> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Maxim Levitsky Cc: linux acpi , Alexey Starikovskiy Maxim Levitsky wrote: > Hi, > > So this is newer version of this patchset. > When this will be merged? > > > Last patch doesn't apply, seems that parts of yours patch were applied. > I applied it manually. > > Will soon test. > > > Best regards, > Maxim Levitsky > I will submit "To: len" next time round. You're right, it no longer applies cleanly to acpi-test. ["patch" is happy to apply it and warn about "fuzz", but git-am is more strict. It doesn't look like there's a real conflict.] I look forward to your results. Please tell me the diff you end up with for the last patch and what tree you applied it on top of. That way, if I add "Tested-by: Maxim..." I can be certain we're talking about the same patch :-). Thanks! Alan