[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1459134954.25110.26.camel@perches.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 20:15:54 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>
Cc: Lv Zheng <zetalog@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/30] ACPICA: Linuxize: reduce divergences for 20160212
release
On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 03:02 +0000, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> Hi,
Hello.
> > So why not fix the process script first?
> > Maybe add something like:
> > $ grep -E "^typedef\s+\w+\s*\*?\s*acpi_\w+" include/acpi/actypes.h | \
> > grep -Eoh "\bacpi_\w+"
> >
> > to the acpi_types variable in the lindent_single function
> [Lv Zheng]
> I don't think this can work given:
> 1. we are not only dealing with typedefs, but structs, struct xxx will be converted into types during the release process.
> 2. we have only upper cased type names in ACPICA upstream, but have the lower cased type names in Linux, and this doesn't solve that.
> So I guess you didn't test your idea.
Good guess.
The "maybe add something like" should give you a clue.
> You need to pull ACPICA repo and do the followings to confirm if this is working:
No, I disagree. _I_ don't need to. You need to.
You shouldn't have a process that generates defective patches
and then sends them to the list.
cheers, Joe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists