> > > > > > -acpi_status acpi_hw_read(u32 *value, struct acpi_generic_address > *reg) > > > +acpi_status acpi_hw_read(u32 *value, struct acpi_generic_address * > reg) > > > > The second argument * style appears the opposite of normal style > > and a different style than the first argument * style. > [Lv Zheng] > The file is drivers/acpi/acpica/hwregs.c, which is coming from ACPICA > upstream. > So this is a result of "ACPICA release". > In other words, this is a result of a "process". > In order to fix this, things need to be done in "ACPICA release scripts". > Which should be done in > https://github.com/acpica/acpica/blob/master/generate/linux/libacpica.sh. > Otherwise, "ACPICA release" process will require human intervention. > > So please leave this patch fragment as is. > It will be automatically fixed if the "ACPICA release" process is fixed. > And if you don't leave this fragment as is, the "ACPICA release" process > will get hurt. I disagree. The patch should be correct when it hits the Linux kernel tree. If the process is broken, then fix the process and re-send a fixed patch. Linux doesn't care if the process is a program that runs with the click of a button, or the result of 1000 engineering laboring day and night. Only the result matters, the result should be correct, and this patch is not correct. -Len ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
