It's OK, though I think my patch doesn't depend on any other patches in the series. I'll change my patch order, making this one the first one for the series and rebase the whole series again so that it's up to you to determine to accept which one. But if you could wait a minute, I can send out an upgraded bug-fix part today as after the internal discussion, I now actually know everything you want. I do think other bug fixes should also be included in the 3.12. I hope you could accept my series as I have the environment that be able to do a complete functional test on the ACPI IPMI functionality. It's just because we have some business reasons (something like internal process, other assignments) that delayed the upgraded version. Thanks and best regards -Lv > From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:13 PM > > On Thursday, September 12, 2013 10:44:02 AM Tony Camuso wrote: > > Hi, Len. > > > > On Jul 23, Lv Zheng submitted this patch (02/13) > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/23/96 > > > > .. and early this month, not having seen Lv's patch, I > > submitted a virtual identical one, here. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/2/305 > > > > We've been seeing lockdep splats that are fixed by this > > patch, so I'm wondering if Lv's patch will be included > > in kernel v3.12. > > I actually have a plan to apply your patch, because it doesn't depend on the > additional changes made by Lv that don't belong in 3.12. > > Thanks, > Rafael ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
