Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (x64 thermal build failure)

2008-02-20 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:21:33 +0100 Thomas Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:21:29 -0800, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] a __crit : ug, sorry, if I'd realised it was like this I'd have said don't bother. Apart from the obvious problem, this means that people will

Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (x64 thermal build failure)

2008-02-19 Thread Randy Dunlap
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:55:02 +0100 Thomas Petazzoni wrote: Le Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:13:40 -0800, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Option 3 wold be to add more #ifdef CONFIG_DMI lines around the place. How ugly would that get? Like the attached patch. #ifdef CONFIG_DMI

Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (x64 thermal build failure)

2008-02-19 Thread Thomas Petazzoni
Le Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:13:40 -0800, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Option 3 wold be to add more #ifdef CONFIG_DMI lines around the place. How ugly would that get? Like the attached patch. #ifdef CONFIG_DMI everywhere :-( Sincerly, Thomas --- Turn CONFIG_DMI into a selectable

Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (x64 thermal build failure)

2008-02-19 Thread Randy Dunlap
Thomas Petazzoni wrote: Le Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:41:47 -0800, Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Does this patch apply to -mm? Seem like No. No, it was generated against 2.6.25-rc2. After converting it from mime(?) to ASCII Probably due to my PGP-MIME signature. Will try to remember

Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (x64 thermal build failure)

2008-02-19 Thread Thomas Petazzoni
Le Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:41:47 -0800, Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Does this patch apply to -mm? Seem like No. No, it was generated against 2.6.25-rc2. After converting it from mime(?) to ASCII Probably due to my PGP-MIME signature. Will try to remember that I should disable it

Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (x64 thermal build failure)

2008-02-19 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:55:02 +0100 Thomas Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:13:40 -0800, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] a __crit : Option 3 wold be to add more #ifdef CONFIG_DMI lines around the place. How ugly would that get? Like the attached patch. #ifdef

Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (x64 thermal build failure)

2008-02-19 Thread Thomas Petazzoni
Le Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:21:29 -0800, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : ug, sorry, if I'd realised it was like this I'd have said don't bother. Apart from the obvious problem, this means that people will keep breaking CONFIG_DMI=n all the time, because they will forget the ifdefs, and

Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (x64 thermal build failure)

2008-02-18 Thread Thomas Petazzoni
Hi, Le Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:44:10 -0800, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Bustage in x86-configurable-dmi-scanning-code.patch. Previously, DMI=y was just hardwired. Now, it becomes selectable and stuff breaks. I guess the DMI=n version of dmi_check_system() could become a macro

Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (x64 thermal build failure)

2008-02-18 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:15:36 +0100 Thomas Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Le Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:44:10 -0800, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] a __crit : Bustage in x86-configurable-dmi-scanning-code.patch. Previously, DMI=y was just hardwired. Now, it becomes selectable and

Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (x64 thermal build failure)

2008-02-16 Thread Randy Dunlap
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:25:22 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.25-rc2/2.6.25-rc2-mm1/ ACPI is enabled, but DMI=n. linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/drivers/acpi/thermal.c: In function 'acpi_thermal_init':

Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (x64 thermal build failure)

2008-02-16 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:16:03 -0800 Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:25:22 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.25-rc2/2.6.25-rc2-mm1/ ACPI is enabled, but DMI=n.