From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: + pm-convert-wakeup-flag-accessors-to-inline-functions-fix.patch added to -mm tree Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:55:28 +0100 Message-ID: <200803192255.29655.rjw@sisk.pl> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux-pm mailing list , Kernel development list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, 19 of March 2008, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:48:29AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > I'll drop everything, let's start again. > > > > > > Only how? umm, please review Greg's driver tree, let us know which patches > > > shoudl be dropped from that then send new ones, I guess. > > > > Yes, please do, I'm confused as well :) > > Okay. No doubt Rafael will correct me if I get something wrong. > > Greg's tree still contains the original, wrong version of > pm-make-wakeup-flags-available-whenever-config_pm-is-set.patch. It > should be reverted. In its place should be substituted this series of > patches (URLs for 0/3 ... 3/3): > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120561808422302&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120561808522316&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120561808522322&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120561808622328&w=2 > > There is likely to be a conflict in applying the 2/3 patch, because its > first hunk touches a region of code also affected by work Rafael has > been doing. The important aspect of that hunk is that it moves the > should_wakeup flag definition outside the region protected by "#ifdef > CONFIG_PM_SLEEP". I've just resent the three patches, rebased on top of the current tree. Please double check if everytning is right. Thanks, Rafael