On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:40:30 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 02:54:00 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > arch/ia64/pci/pci.c | 8 ++++++++ > > > arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h | 3 +++ > > > arch/x86/pci/acpi.c | 9 +++++++++ > > > drivers/acpi/pci_root.c | 18 ------------------ > > > drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c | 19 ------------------- > > > drivers/pci/probe.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > > > include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 1 - > > > include/linux/pci.h | 2 ++ > > > 8 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 38 deletions > > ... > > > I'll wait for comments from the others, if any, and put it into my acpi-scan > > > branch after a couple of days. It doesn't need to be there technically, but > > > it's kind of related. > > > > looks like you put it into acpi-scan-next instead. > > > > and it does touch pci code. > > > > can you put it in to acpi-scan ? so Bjorn could pull it again to pci/next. > > I will tomorrow. There is a problem with this, because the acpi-scan branch is based on v3.8-rc2 that doesn't the contain __devinit removal in arch/ia64/pci/pci.c which conflicts with the version of the $subject patch I have in linux-next. If I put this patch into acpi-scan and Bjorn pulls from it, he will need to resolve that conflict going forward and I will have to resolve it too, so we'll end up with two merge commits resolving the same conflict. For this reason, I think it would be better if Bjorn took the $subject patch directly to his tree, so I've dropped it from my linux-next branch. Bjorn, can you please apply https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1956491/ directly? Rafael -- 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
