On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi Len,
> >
> > Have you seen these three patches? Do they look OK to you?
> >
> > Yinghai Lu improve the third patch ("acpi: remove final __acpi_map_table
> > mapping before setting acpi_gbl_permanent_mmap"), which I think Ingo
> > sent you instead.
>
> Len,
>
> i asked about these patches before too - and if that's fine with you we'd
> just queue them up in the x86 tree (like we did before the .28 merge
> window). Most of the impact will be on x86. So an Acked-by from you would
> be fine to start this.
Sorry for the delay.
I recall reading your e-mail on this and thought I replied to it,
but for some reason I found neither your original message nor
my reply when I searched my archives today.
But I did recall Ingo making a branch for this one, and so looking
at remotes/origin/acpi-for-len in ingo's tree...
It isn't immediately clear to me what problem this patch series solves,
and thus it is hard to judge how important this is.
It touches a lot of files, and it is going to run into a bunch of merge
conflicts.
I'm not thrilled that the first part of the series makes changes
which are then undone by the later part of the series --
that doesn't help w/ conflict resolution...
The change to tbxface.c is an ACPICA API change.
It looks reasonable and it might be the right change,
but it is extra work -- we should sync with Bob
when he gets back from break.
So, this one is sort of a headache, how important is it?
thanks,
-- Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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
