On Monday 22 of October 2012 17:40:36 Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I recall having an identical patch in my queue for v3.8. If it's not there after all, I'll take yours. Thanks, Rafael > --- > > not sure if there's something weirdly subtle happening here, but > this looks like a straightforward simplification. > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/drivers/acpi/osl.c > index 9eaf708..e76a7f5 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c > @@ -949,12 +949,7 @@ static acpi_status __acpi_os_execute(acpi_execute_type type, > (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq); > dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0; > > - if (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq) > - INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > - else if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq) > - INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > - else > - INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > > /* > * On some machines, a software-initiated SMI causes corruption unless > > > -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, 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
