[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <A961433CDFF2F640A2866803152E61F95D13A750@G9W0715.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 13:58:08 +0000
From: "Ortiz, Lance E" <lance.oritz@...com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"lance_ortiz@...mail.com" <lance_ortiz@...mail.com>,
"jiang.liu@...wei.com" <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"mchehab@...hat.com" <mchehab@...hat.com>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] aerdrv: Move cper_print_aer() call out of interrupt
context
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:55:20AM +0000, Ortiz, Lance E wrote:
> > This TODO is a note for future clean-up and is not directly related
> to
> >the bug being fixed with this patch. Which lends to the argument of
> why
> >put the TODO in this patch? Opportunistic. I don’t think we want to
> >create a separate patch just for a TODO note.
>
> Sounds to me, this TODO item should be on your TODO list - not in
> kernel
> sources :-)
> --
Makes sense. I will yank the TODO and resubmit the patch.
Lance
Powered by blists - more mailing lists