> Ok, this iteration is even nicer. Thank you, Ingo, both for the thoughtful review, and your kind words. > Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> > > A patch technical request/suggestion. I guess you'd like to keep > these bits in the ACPI tree, so that you can test it and merge it > with ongoing ACPI changes, right? > > That would be fine to me for all the arch/x86/ touching patches, > except for this one: > > [PATCH 05/11] ACPI, x86: expose some IO-APIC routines when CONFIG_ACPI=n > > I'd like to pick this one up into tip:x86/apic, because there's > ongoing work in this area. (also, by the looks of it, i'd not be > surprised if this patch needed some testing. This is fragile code > with quirky Kconfig dependencies.) > > I can create a standalone topic for this (based on .31-rc6), > containing this single commit, which you could pull into the ACPI > tree? That way we both can have this commit and nobody is held up, > and both trees can be pushed to Linus in the .32 merge window, > independently of each other. Sure. Go ahead and pull that patch onto an 2.6.31-rc8 based branch from here: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-sfi-2.6.git for-ingo As the previous patches did not depend on it, I simply rebased that one to rc8 and moved the other patches after it. Yes, I use a single git database for ACPI and SFI so they can share things such as this patch, but rather than make SFI a branch in the kernel.org ACPI tree, it has its own tree, since most of SFI is independent of ACPI. 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
