Hi, I can offer detailed proof hereafter: After I reverted the acdisasm.h inclusion and refreshed all of the release patches, I could found the following differences between the final patches and the linuxize.sh generated ones: PATCH 06 - 15 are marked as 20121114-01 -> 10 in my quilt stack. release patches patch name (acpica) state patch diff lines 20121114-01.patch(01) 100% 0 20121114-02.patch(02) 100% 0 20121114-03.patch(07) 100% 1 (indent) 20121114-04.patch(10) 100% 10 (acdisasm) + 7 (context) 20121114-05.patch(13) 100% 0 20121114-06.patch(15) 100% 0 20121114-07.patch(17) 100% 1 (indent) 20121114-08.patch(18) 100% 0 20121114-09.patch(19) 100% 0 20121114-10.patch(30) 100% 2 (include) 20121114-03.patch: > -acpi_ut_evaluate_object(struct acpi_namespace_node *prefix_node, > +acpi_ut_evaluate_object(struct acpi_namespace_node * prefix_node, This is there due to the indentation divergences fixes which are not what I'm worrying about. 20121114-04.patch: > - * dmextern > + * dmdeferred > +acpi_status acpi_dm_parse_deferred_ops(union acpi_parse_object *root); > +/* > + * dmextern > + */ > -acpi_status acpi_dm_is_resource_template(union acpi_parse_object *op); > +acpi_status > +acpi_dm_is_resource_template(struct acpi_walk_state *walk_state, > + union acpi_parse_object *op); < acpi_walk_aml_callback user_function, < void **context); > acpi_walk_aml_callback user_function, void *context); < acpi_walk_aml_callback user_function, void **context) > acpi_walk_aml_callback user_function, void *context) < (void **)end_tag); > end_tag); 10 lines are caused by lacking of acdisasm.h and 7 lines are caused by (void **) fixes. The latter will be seen in the next acpica release which is not what I'm worrying about. I just care about the acdisasm.h, if it is included, my life can be easier and it will not be a trouble for the developers currently using ACPICA in the community. 20121114-07.patch: < (u16) (aml_length + > (u16)(aml_length + This is there due to the indentation divergences fixes which are not what I'm worrying about. 20121114-10.patch: < #include <acpi/acconfig.h> < #include <acpi/actypes.h> > #include "acconfig.h" > #include "actypes.h" This is there due to the header inclusion changes which are not what I'm worrying about. Best regards -Lv > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Zheng, Lv > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 4:24 PM > To: Brown, Len; Wysocki, Rafael J > Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [PATCH 01/15] ACPICA: Fixes unmerged (dis)assember > divergences. > > Hi, Len and Rafael > > Please also look at the [PATCH 09/15] ACPICA: Debugger: Major update for the > Disassemble<method> command. > > There is acdisasm.h updates in the patch 09. > If we can introduce acdisasm.h into linux but surround it with #ifdef/#endif to > make it compiled out, then no manual fixes are needed for the [PATCH 09/15] > thus less bugs in release process, Or fixes are needed to be included as a > special case in the acpica release scripts. > > Please think about the benefit of adding this file. > I'm waiting for the decision on this. > > Best regards > -Lv > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brown, Len > > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:59 AM > > To: Zheng, Lv; Wysocki, Rafael J > > Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 01/15] ACPICA: Fixes unmerged (dis)assember > > divergences. > > > > > drivers/acpi/acpica/acdisasm.h | 641 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > please do not include this file in the linux kenrel. > > > > thanks, > > -Len > -- > 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 -- 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
