On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 06:55:33 PM Moore, Robert wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@xxxxxxx] > > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 4:25 PM > > To: Zheng, Lv > > Cc: Len Brown; Wysocki, Rafael J; Moore, Robert; Brown, Len; linux acpi > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] ACPICA: 20130517 release > > > > On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 02:04:46 PM Len Brown wrote: > > > I would like to see this series re-freshed before it goes up-stream. > > > Generally, the commit messages need to be improved before they go into > > > the permanent kernel history. > > > > Lv, > > > > I've dropped [7/16] > > Again, this is a new version of acpidump and should replace the existing utility. OK, and how does the patch actually work? That is, what is a user supposed to do to build the generic acpidump with the patch applied? > and [12/16] permanently (please do not resend them). > > > This is the makefile change for apple, yes? Depends on how you want to handle > such things. If you don't accept these kinds of changes, it introduces > divergence from the ACPICA code. Yes, it does, but on the other hand that change is not necessary in the kernel source. This is a policy issue and we don't seem to have a clear policy here: whether or not divergences related to things that don't have to be in the kernel need to be "fixed". I don't think that they do and Len seems to agree with me. Thanks, 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
