On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 02:15 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, August 05, 2013 05:19:56 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 15:14 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > :
> > > Can you please test the appended patch? I tested it somewhat, but since
> > > the
> > > greatest
On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:12:51 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> (2013/08/06 9:15), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, August 05, 2013 05:19:56 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 15:14 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>:
> >>> Can you please test the appended patch? I
On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:12:51 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
(2013/08/06 9:15), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, August 05, 2013 05:19:56 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 15:14 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
:
Can you please test the appended patch? I tested it
On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 02:15 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, August 05, 2013 05:19:56 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 15:14 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
:
Can you please test the appended patch? I tested it somewhat, but since
the
greatest number of
(2013/08/06 9:15), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, August 05, 2013 05:19:56 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 15:14 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
:
Can you please test the appended patch? I tested it somewhat, but since the
greatest number of physical nodes per ACPI device
On Monday, August 05, 2013 05:19:56 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 15:14 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> :
> > Can you please test the appended patch? I tested it somewhat, but since the
> > greatest number of physical nodes per ACPI device object I can get on my
> > test
> >
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 15:14 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
:
> Can you please test the appended patch? I tested it somewhat, but since the
> greatest number of physical nodes per ACPI device object I can get on my test
> machines is 2 (and even that after hacking the kernel somewhat), that was
On Monday, August 05, 2013 04:59:20 PM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> (2013/08/05 13:00), Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> > (2013/08/04 9:37), Toshi Kani wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 03:01 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Friday, August 02, 2013 06:04:40 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Sat,
On Monday, August 05, 2013 04:59:20 PM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
(2013/08/05 13:00), Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
(2013/08/04 9:37), Toshi Kani wrote:
On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 03:01 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 06:04:40 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
On Sat, 2013-08-03 at
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 15:14 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
:
Can you please test the appended patch? I tested it somewhat, but since the
greatest number of physical nodes per ACPI device object I can get on my test
machines is 2 (and even that after hacking the kernel somewhat), that was
On Monday, August 05, 2013 05:19:56 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 15:14 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
:
Can you please test the appended patch? I tested it somewhat, but since the
greatest number of physical nodes per ACPI device object I can get on my
test
machines is
(2013/08/06 9:15), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, August 05, 2013 05:19:56 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 15:14 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
:
Can you please test the appended patch? I tested it somewhat, but since the
greatest number of physical nodes per ACPI device
12 matches
Mail list logo