From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: state of some x86 acpi patches Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:28:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: 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=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from vms044pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.44]:59065 "EHLO vms044pub.verizon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751573AbZABW2W (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:28:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([96.237.168.40]) by vms044.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KCV00KTX7R89BW3@vms044.mailsrvcs.net> for linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:28:21 -0600 (CST) 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: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Yinghai Lu , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > 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? Sounds great! thanks, Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center