Hi!
> >>@@ -184,6 +179,8 @@ machine_halt(void)
> >> void
> >> machine_power_off(void)
> >> {
> >>+ do_kernel_poweroff();
> >>+
> >
> >poweroff -> power_off for consistency.
> >
> Dunno; matter of personal preference. I started with that, but ultimately went
> with poweroff to distinguish poweroff handler functions from existing code,
> specifically kernel_power_off().
That works for you, but once it is merged, it is ugly/confusing typo.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
