From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sedat Dilek Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for April 4 [BROKEN thinkpad_acpi] Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:44:27 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20110404122225.GA15883@srcf.ucam.org> <1301921369.1941.29.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20110404130036.GB16669@srcf.ucam.org> Reply-To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Joe Perches , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , platform-driver-x86 , ibm-acpi@hmh.eng.br List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Matthew Garrett wrot= e: >> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 05:49:29AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> >>> It's vdbg_printk no_printk verification. >>> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_THINKPAD_ACPI_DEBUG >>> #define vdbg_printk dbg_printk >>> static const char *str_supported(int is_supported); >>> #else >>> #define vdbg_printk(a_dbg_level, format, arg...) =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= \ >>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 no_printk(format, ##arg) >>> #endif >>> >>> Two ways to handle this. >>> >>> 1: add >>> static inline const char *str_supported(int is_supported) { return = ""; } >>> to the #else >>> >>> 2: Remove no_printk verification and return it to do {} while (0) >>> >>> Do you have a preference? >> >> I don't. Henrique? >> >> -- >> Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org >> > > I have tried with solution #2 as it partially restores old behaviour > (patch is attached). > > - Sedat - > Please feel free to add a: Reported-by: Sedat Dilek =46or solution #2 : Tested-by: Sedat Dilek - Sedat -