On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 05:22:04 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 00:24 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:37:27 AM Tony Luck wrote:
> > > > Can you please apply the appended patch on top of it and see if the
> > > > system
> > > > still works then?
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 00:24 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:37:27 AM Tony Luck wrote:
> > > Can you please apply the appended patch on top of it and see if the system
> > > still works then?
> >
> > Still works with this patch.
>
> Cool, thanks! :-)
>
> If you
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 03:40:21 PM Tony Luck wrote:
> > If you don't mind, I'll queue up
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2712741/ and
> > this for 3.11.
>
> Mark them
>
> Tested-by: Tony Luck
>
> if you like.
I will, thank you!
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
> If you don't mind, I'll queue up https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2712741/
> and
> this for 3.11.
Mark them
Tested-by: Tony Luck
if you like.
-Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:37:27 AM Tony Luck wrote:
> > Can you please apply the appended patch on top of it and see if the system
> > still works then?
>
> Still works with this patch.
Cool, thanks! :-)
If you don't mind, I'll queue up https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2712741/ and
this
> Can you please apply the appended patch on top of it and see if the system
> still works then?
Still works with this patch.
-Tony
> ---
> drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++
> drivers/acpi/video.c |3 ---
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> Index:
Can you please apply the appended patch on top of it and see if the system
still works then?
Still works with this patch.
-Tony
---
drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++
drivers/acpi/video.c |3 ---
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:37:27 AM Tony Luck wrote:
Can you please apply the appended patch on top of it and see if the system
still works then?
Still works with this patch.
Cool, thanks! :-)
If you don't mind, I'll queue up https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2712741/ and
this for
If you don't mind, I'll queue up https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2712741/
and
this for 3.11.
Mark them
Tested-by: Tony Luck tony.l...@intel.com
if you like.
-Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 03:40:21 PM Tony Luck wrote:
If you don't mind, I'll queue up
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2712741/ and
this for 3.11.
Mark them
Tested-by: Tony Luck tony.l...@intel.com
if you like.
I will, thank you!
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 00:24 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:37:27 AM Tony Luck wrote:
Can you please apply the appended patch on top of it and see if the system
still works then?
Still works with this patch.
Cool, thanks! :-)
If you don't mind, I'll
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 05:22:04 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 00:24 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:37:27 AM Tony Luck wrote:
Can you please apply the appended patch on top of it and see if the
system
still works then?
Still
On Friday, June 14, 2013 03:32:42 PM Tony Luck wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Can you please just test patch [5/5] alone without patches [1-4/5]? We
> > believe
> > that this should work too and if that's the case, we'll only need that patch
> > and a
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Can you please just test patch [5/5] alone without patches [1-4/5]? We
> believe
> that this should work too and if that's the case, we'll only need that patch
> and a reworked [1/5].
Your belief is sound - I popped all five patches
On Friday, June 14, 2013 06:01:41 PM Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> Tony promised me to test those patches on his box, so we'll know for sure
> >> in a while.
>
> Tested this series - and the box boots just fine with no unexpected messages.
Thanks!
> But I should note that this box doesn't have
>> Tony promised me to test those patches on his box, so we'll know for sure
>> in a while.
Tested this series - and the box boots just fine with no unexpected messages.
But I should note that this box doesn't have anything that is hot pluggable, so
I
couldn't test hotplug (which seems to be
Tony promised me to test those patches on his box, so we'll know for sure
in a while.
Tested this series - and the box boots just fine with no unexpected messages.
But I should note that this box doesn't have anything that is hot pluggable, so
I
couldn't test hotplug (which seems to be deeply
On Friday, June 14, 2013 06:01:41 PM Luck, Tony wrote:
Tony promised me to test those patches on his box, so we'll know for sure
in a while.
Tested this series - and the box boots just fine with no unexpected messages.
Thanks!
But I should note that this box doesn't have anything that is
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
Can you please just test patch [5/5] alone without patches [1-4/5]? We
believe
that this should work too and if that's the case, we'll only need that patch
and a reworked [1/5].
Your belief is sound - I popped all five
On Friday, June 14, 2013 03:32:42 PM Tony Luck wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
Can you please just test patch [5/5] alone without patches [1-4/5]? We
believe
that this should work too and if that's the case, we'll only need that patch
and a
On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 00:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, June 13, 2013 03:28:59 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 01:23 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > It turns out that some BIOSes add container device IDs as _CIDs to device
> > > object
On Thursday, June 13, 2013 03:28:59 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 01:23 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > It turns out that some BIOSes add container device IDs as _CIDs to device
> > object that in principle may be matched against the other scan handlers (or
> >
On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 01:23 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> It turns out that some BIOSes add container device IDs as _CIDs to device
> object that in principle may be matched against the other scan handlers (or
> ACPI drivers, but that's not a problem, because the container scan
On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 01:23 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi All,
It turns out that some BIOSes add container device IDs as _CIDs to device
object that in principle may be matched against the other scan handlers (or
ACPI drivers, but that's not a problem, because the container scan handler
On Thursday, June 13, 2013 03:28:59 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 01:23 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi All,
It turns out that some BIOSes add container device IDs as _CIDs to device
object that in principle may be matched against the other scan handlers (or
ACPI
On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 00:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, June 13, 2013 03:28:59 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 01:23 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi All,
It turns out that some BIOSes add container device IDs as _CIDs to device
object that in
Hi All,
It turns out that some BIOSes add container device IDs as _CIDs to device
object that in principle may be matched against the other scan handlers (or
ACPI drivers, but that's not a problem, because the container scan handler
can co-exist with an ACPI driver). That's why our recent fix
Hi All,
It turns out that some BIOSes add container device IDs as _CIDs to device
object that in principle may be matched against the other scan handlers (or
ACPI drivers, but that's not a problem, because the container scan handler
can co-exist with an ACPI driver). That's why our recent fix
28 matches
Mail list logo
