http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12376
kh...@linux-fr.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|PATCH_ALREADY_AVAILABLE |
------- Comment #25 from kh...@linux-fr.org 2009-03-10 01:54 -------
Err, please don't close this bug before the fix has been reviewed, tested and
has made it into mainline. Not to mention that PATCH_ALREADY_AVAILABLE for a
patch you just wrote is dishonest - you should use CODE_FIX as the resolution.
Review of the patch:
__cpuinitdata doesn't sound right for acpi_resources_dmi_table, it should be
__initdata.
Please use proper C99-style structure initialization for
acpi_resources_dmi_table (that is, including member names.)
DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "901") seems a little fragile... and incorrect if I
read the DMI data properly. You should use DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "901") if
I am not mistaken. And I would also check for DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "Eee
PC") to make the test more robust.
Why do you test for 901 while the reporter of this bug has an Eee PC 702? I am
curious if we should blacklist all Eee PC models maybe.
You moved the definition of acpi_enforce_resources but you didn't move the
comments that explain its possible values. This makes the code harder to read.
Please move the comment together with the code it refers to.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
acpi-bugzilla mailing list
acpi-bugzilla@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acpi-bugzilla
