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