On Sunday, June 03, 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ps. Sorry for sending this request at the tails of the merge window --
> > I'll try to be earlier next time.
>
> Christ, not only is it after I really wanted to do -rc1 (held up by
> the tty locking problems), but it doesn't even compile.
>
> Find the bug (the compiler certainly did):
>
> static inline int acpi_pm_device_sleep_state(struct device *d, int *p, int m)
> {
> if (p)
> *p = ACPI_STATE_D0;
> return (m >= ACPI_STATE_D0 && <= ACPI_STATE_D3) ? m : ACPI_STATE_D0;
> }
>
> and no, it wasn't a merge error. That's what it looks like in your tree.
>
> The commit was done yesterday. It clearly had *zero* testing.
>
> Looking more at the pull as a result of this, I notice that almost
> every commit in that tree is from yesterday, and thus cleary cannot
> have been in -next. I was going to just fix up the obvious one-liner
> fixup, but looking at the bigger picture I'm going to say "3.6
> material" for this whole thing.
Well, perhaps you could take my branch at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git pm-acpi
which was included into the Len's pull, for 3.5?
It was ready a few days ago, and has been present in linux-next even longer
and contains fixes for real bugs. I didn't push it myself, because it
generally is ACPI material, but since you're not going to take the Len's
tree now, can you please consider taking that branch at least?
Rafael
--
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
