The yes was for any changes to cfgadm options. 4.1.2.3 contains the attachment point info. Does that need a separate case also?
-Geeta >-----Original Message----- >From: Krishna, Geetanjali [mailto:geetanjali.krishna at intel.com] >Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 4:01 PM >To: Michael.Corcoran at Sun.COM; Jerry Gilliam >Cc: PSARC-ext at Sun.COM; Liu, Jiang; Raj, Ashok; Kasten, Robert A; >Sherry.Moore at Sun.COM; Wesley.Shao at Sun.COM; Vikram Hegde; >Dana.Myers at Sun.COM; Mara.Roccaforte at Sun.COM >Subject: RE: Update to Hot-Plug Support for ACPI-based Systems >[PSARC/2009/104 02/20/2009] > >Yes, that is correct. We will be filing a separate PSARC case for any >cfgadm changes. Sorry for the confusion, I should have removed it when we >updated the PSARC case. > >-Geeta > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Michael.Corcoran at Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Corcoran at Sun.COM] >>Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 3:46 PM >>To: Jerry Gilliam >>Cc: Michael Corcoran; PSARC-ext at Sun.COM; Krishna, Geetanjali; Liu, Jiang; >>Raj, Ashok; Kasten, Robert A; Sherry.Moore at Sun.COM; Wesley.Shao at Sun.COM; >>Vikram Hegde; Dana.Myers at Sun.COM; Mara.Roccaforte at Sun.COM >>Subject: Re: Update to Hot-Plug Support for ACPI-based Systems >>[PSARC/2009/104 02/20/2009] >> >>Hi All, >> >>I was requested to clarify that the changes to the cfgadm_sbd man page >>and section 4.1.2.3 will be moved to a new PSARC case since the code >>for this PSARC case will not be putting back those changes since those >>areas of code have not been touched. I'll post a pointer to the new >>case which contains these once it is filed. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Mike >> >>On Jul 29, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Jerry Gilliam wrote: >> >>> >>> No issues have been raised and no request to reset the case to >>> a full fast-track, so this case is approved relative to the >>> amended materials. >>> >>> >>> thx, >>> -jg >
