Andrew,

I can not contact with Len for several days, while the oops on battery 
seems quite important.
It also seem to behave well in -mm tree (as part of Len's acpi-test).
Will you send this patch to Linus without approval from Len or should I?

Thanks,
Alex.

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:36:43 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de> wrote:
>
>   
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>     
>>> A> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:35:23 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> [remove_cycle_at_battery_removal.patch  text/x-patch (1.7KB)]
>>>> ACPI: Battery: remove cycle from battery removal.
>>>>
>>>> From: Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>
>>>>
>>>> get_property() should not call battery_update() on absent battery to
>>>> avoid cycle and oops.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>
>>>> Tested-by: Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@sf-tec.de>
>>>>         
>>> A patch similar to this one but with an identical changelog was merged into
>>> Len's tree on November 2.
>>>
>>> If it had been promptly merged into mainline then quite a lot of people's
>>> time would not have been wasted.
>>>
>>>       
>> Andrew,
>> should I send such patches directly to you/Linus?
>>
>>     
>
> Well if Len doesn't object and you're confident in the changes, why not? 
> Any time we leave bugs unfixed we drive away testers and that impacts all
> parts of the kernel.
>
>