The bug report suggest that this patch is not a complete fix for the issue, so I'd prefer we get a resolution, or at least a better understanding of the failure, before sending patches upstream for this issue. thanks Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Daniel Smolik <marvin@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Taken from http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12360 > > nfi if it's right - I merged it so it wouldn't get lost. > > Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: <hmacht@xxxxxxx> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxx> [2.6.26.x, 2.6.27.x, 2.6.28.x] > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > drivers/acpi/dock.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff -puN drivers/acpi/dock.c~acpi-dock-terminate-eject-request-is-the-dock-is-not-present drivers/acpi/dock.c > --- a/drivers/acpi/dock.c~acpi-dock-terminate-eject-request-is-the-dock-is-not-present > +++ a/drivers/acpi/dock.c > @@ -668,6 +668,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unregister_hotplug_doc > */ > static int handle_eject_request(struct dock_station *ds, u32 event) > { > + if (!dock_present(ds)) > + return -ENODEV; > + > if (dock_in_progress(ds)) > return -EBUSY; > > _ > -- 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
