On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 04:48:55PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: >> Yes, updating the acpi_evaluate_dsm() definition seems the best choice. >> > > I have a patch for this. While not big (6 files), these files are > outside of nvdimm and will have a two line of over a dozen reviewers/lists > not previously reviewing this series. For an acpi change no need to cc all those folks and lists. Just cc the following for that change: Bob Moore <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx> Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> <linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Why 6 files and not 2 for a prototype update? I wouldn't go touch existing callers of acpi_evaluate_dsm() if they have been living with the potential truncation all this time there's no need to change. > Do you want me to send this patch as one of this series (w/ the > extra reviewers?) Yes, send that patch with the series so the acpi developers have the context for what motivated the change. -- 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
