On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 13:39 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > Alok Kataria wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 12:48 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > >> Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> From: Alok N Kataria <akataria@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9772 > >> This bug has nothing to do with the patch? > >> > >> "This patch fixes the return value of acpi_eject_store()" > >> > > > > This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl complaints introduced by patch in > > comment 23 in that bug. > > Please look here for the checkpatch.pl complaints.. > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9772#c33 > > Well that's still not a very useful description, given that you fix > a real bug here, not just the usual checkpatch whitspace nops. > Maybe I am overlooking what you are trying to say over here. but, Which real bug ? > Not sure why Len also didn't fast track it. It seems to me like > something .26-worthy. > This patch modifies the code to use kthread_run instead of kernel_thread. The kernel_thread call was introduced by an earlier patch from Zhang Rui which is in comment 23. Since the patch from Zhang has not reached mainline yet, i fail to understand how can this patch be worthy of .26 ? Thanks, Alok > -Andi > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
