On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:35:18 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I can not contact with Len for several days, while the oops on battery
> seems quite important.
> It also seem to behave well in -mm tree (as part of Len's acpi-test).
> Will you send this patch to Linus without
Andrew,
I can not contact with Len for several days, while the oops on battery
seems quite important.
It also seem to behave well in -mm tree (as part of Len's acpi-test).
Will you send this patch to Linus without approval from Len or should I?
Thanks,
Alex.
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 09 N
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:36:43 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > A> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:35:23 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [remove_cycle_at_battery_removal.patch text/x-patch (1.7KB)]
> >> ACPI: Battery: remove cycl
Andrew Morton wrote:
A> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:35:23 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[remove_cycle_at_battery_removal.patch text/x-patch (1.7KB)]
ACPI: Battery: remove cycle from battery removal.
From: Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
get_property() should not cal
A> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:35:23 +0300 Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [remove_cycle_at_battery_removal.patch text/x-patch (1.7KB)]
> ACPI: Battery: remove cycle from battery removal.
>
> From: Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> get_property() should not call battery_up
Hi Alex,
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:35:23PM +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >On Thursday, 8 of November 2007, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>is there any reason, why acpi_battery_get_property() should call
> >>acpi_battery_update() at all?
> >
> >Alex?
> Do
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:11:53PM +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >On Thursday, 8 of November 2007, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>is there any reason, why acpi_battery_get_property() should call
> >>acpi_battery_update() at all?
> >
> >Alex?
> If someo
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, 8 of November 2007, Johannes Weiner wrote:
Hi,
is there any reason, why acpi_battery_get_property() should call
acpi_battery_update() at all?
Alex?
Do you mean "why should it call _whole_ battery update?" ?
get_state should be sufficient in order to not
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, 8 of November 2007, Johannes Weiner wrote:
Hi,
is there any reason, why acpi_battery_get_property() should call
acpi_battery_update() at all?
Alex?
If someone wants to read stale values, he could comment out acpi_battery_update.
Regards,
Alex.
-
To unsu
On Thursday, 8 of November 2007, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is there any reason, why acpi_battery_get_property() should call
> acpi_battery_update() at all?
Alex?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More maj
Hi,
is there any reason, why acpi_battery_get_property() should call
acpi_battery_update() at all?
Hannes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.h
On Monday, 5 of November 2007, Michael (rabenkind) Brandstetter wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 4. November 2007 14:17:23 schrieben Sie:
> > On Sunday, 4 of November 2007, Romano Giannetti wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 17:08 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 2 November 2007 00:14, Andrew
Am Sonntag, 4. November 2007 14:17:23 schrieben Sie:
> On Sunday, 4 of November 2007, Romano Giannetti wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 17:08 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, 2 November 2007 00:14, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:11:04 +0100
Hello!
> > [OOPS re
On Sunday, 4 of November 2007, Romano Giannetti wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 17:08 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 2 November 2007 00:14, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:11:04 +0100
> [OOPS removed]
> > >
> > > Did any earlier kernels do this? In other words,
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 17:08 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 2 November 2007 00:14, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:11:04 +0100
[OOPS removed]
> >
> > Did any earlier kernels do this? In other words, do you believe that this
> > is a bug which we added after 2.6.23 wa
On Friday, 2 November 2007 00:14, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:11:04 +0100
> Romano Giannetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > sometime on resuming from s2ram my laptop spew the following oops.
> > Config, dmesg etc are at:
> >
> > http://www.dea.icai.upcom
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:11:04 +0100
Romano Giannetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> sometime on resuming from s2ram my laptop spew the following oops.
> Config, dmesg etc are at:
>
> http://www.dea.icai.upcomillas.es/romano/linux/info/2624rc1_6/
>
> [3.475386] Oops: [#1]
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
Jens, I should have CC'ed to you.
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:22:02 +0900
FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:40:00 +0100
Sid Boyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
x86_64 dual, gcc version 4.2.2 (SUSE Linux).
[ cut here ]
ker
On Thu, Oct 25 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> Jens, I should have CC'ed to you.
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:22:02 +0900
> FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:40:00 +0100
> > Sid Boyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > x86_64 dual, gcc version 4.2.2 (SUSE Lin
Jens, I should have CC'ed to you.
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:22:02 +0900
FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:40:00 +0100
> Sid Boyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > x86_64 dual, gcc version 4.2.2 (SUSE Linux).
> > [ cut here ]
> > kernel BUG a
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:40:00 +0100
Sid Boyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> x86_64 dual, gcc version 4.2.2 (SUSE Linux).
> [ cut here ]
> kernel BUG at include/linux/scatterlist.h:50!
> invalid opcode: [1] SMP
> CPU 1
> Modules linked in: ub crc_itu_t hwmon cdrom soundco
21 matches
Mail list logo