| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20100815182153.994179c1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:21:53 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: sedat.dilek@...il.com, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, len.brown@...el.com, Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [git pull request] ACPI patches for 2.6.36.merge On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:04:09 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Andrew Morton > <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > I'd be suspecting that we have two patches both of which worked > > separately but which broke when combined. Is there some other patch in > > that tree which adds a new reference to `ref' in acpi_power_seq_show()? > > The offending patch isn't about acpi_power_seq_show(), it's about > acpi_power_off_device(). The patch I sent Len patched acpi_power_seq_show(). > > ... > > What does that say about the _rest_ of the patches? Not tested in combination? > What does that say about (lack of) -next testing? That code compiled OK in -mm which includes linux-next. I assume that some last-minute merging broke things. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists