On 9/9/09, Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 I've applied the patches from the mailing list, initially on -rc8 using git-am, then rebased them onto acpi-test without conflicts. I don't have GIT hosting, so here's a git bundle. If you're still having problems, you should be able to get an _exact_ copy of my tree with $ git fetch alan.bundle battery-check:battery-check $ git checkout battery-check so long as you have the acpi-test commit I based it on. Thanks Alan
Attachment:
alan.bundle
Description: Binary data
