On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 18:22 +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote: > Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > Hi, > > > > So this is newer version of this patchset. > > When this will be merged? > > > > > > Last patch doesn't apply, seems that parts of yours patch were applied. > > I applied it manually. > > > > Will soon test. > > > > > > Best regards, > > Maxim Levitsky > > > > I will submit "To: len" next time round. > > You're right, it no longer applies cleanly to acpi-test. ["patch" is > happy to apply it and warn about "fuzz", but git-am is more strict. It > doesn't look like there's a real conflict.] I applied it on top of both vanilla and linux-next. Here it really doesn't apply (with or without 'fuzz') > > I look forward to your results. Please tell me the diff you end up with > for the last patch and what tree you applied it on top of. That way, if > I add "Tested-by: Maxim..." I can be certain we're talking about the > same patch :-). > > Thanks! > Alan I did that few days ago (applied patch manually, without much thinking) Unfortunately, resulting kernel oopses if battery is present, and otherwise, if I plug batter later on, many battery statistics are missing (probably some locks are held) I will soon investigate this issue, more deeply. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky -- 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
