>> > Please then try the latest ACPI patch here: >> > >http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/patches >/release/2.6.13/acpi-20050902-2.6.13.diff.gz >> > It should apply to vanilla 2.6.13 with a reject in ia64/Kconfig >> > that you can ignore. >> > >> > If this works, then we munged git-acpi.patch in >2.6.13-mm1 somehow. >> >> There were no problems with this patch applied. So it >looks like the >> munge theory is correct. > >That diff is significantly different from the diff I plucked from >master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6 >.git#test >for 2.6.13-mm1. > >Doing (patch -R | grep FAILED) on 2.6.13-mm1 says: Right. 2.6.13/acpi-20050902-2.6.13.diff.gz is newers than 2.6.13-rc1's git-acpi.patch 2.6.13/acpi-20050815-2.6.13.diff.gz is a closer match -- though not exact. Peter, it might be illustrative if you have a moment if you can also test 2.6.13/acpi-20050815-2.6.13.diff.gz all by itself. If it fails, then I broke -mm1 with acpi-20050815-2.6.13.diff.gz, but fixed it by acpi-20050902-2.6.13.diff.gz. If it succeeds, then the issue lies in the relatively small delta between acpi-20050815-2.6.13.diff.gz 2.6.13-mm1's git-acpi.patch. thanks, -Len - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
