From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756880AbYEAGkZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 02:40:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753629AbYEAGkK (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 02:40:10 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:43529 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752745AbYEAGkJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 02:40:09 -0400 From: Len Brown Organization: Intel Open Source Technology Center To: Linus Torvalds , "Zhang, Rui" Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] ACPI patches for 2.6.26-rc0 Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 02:39:47 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org References: <200804301420.11696.lenb@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805010239.48789.lenb@kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Len Brown wrote: > > > > please pull from: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release > > Ok, this clashed in some nasty ways in drivers/acpi/video.c due to the > non-racy /proc file creation changes that came through Andrew. I fixed up > the result, and it *looks* sane (and compiles), but I didn't actually test > it, and I don't know the code well. Can you double-check. Thanks for merging video.c When I did my builds, andrew had not yet scribbled on video.c. I usually do a "last minute" pull to make sure you are not faced with any merges, but this time when I did I got some version of your tree that wouldn't build so I figured it was still moving and didn't bother merging with it. Anyway, I looked over this file and the things I looked for seemed okay, but to be sure I'll repeat your merge tomorrow and see if I come up with the same thing. > There were some (smaller) rejects in drivers/misc/intel_menlow.c due to > two different versions of the same patch from Julia Lawall (again, the > other came through Andrew), and I picked the one from Andrew because it > had the later date. But again, you should double-check. You picked the right one. Indeed, it looks like the other files touched in Julia's earlier patch (9030062f3d61f87c1e787b3aa134fa3a8e4b2d25) don't handle the failure case quite right -- Rui and I will follow-up. thanks, -Len