[PATCH] Revert duplicate "dock: bay: Don't call acpi_walk_namespace()when ACPI is disabled" commit (was: Please pull ACPI updates)

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 
> > My plan was to keep everything in quilt and just regenerate for the pull.
> > Please let me know if it's now not allowed anymore to use quilt.
> 
> End-point developers can use quilt all thei like.
> 
> But people cannot and *MUST NOT* destroy other peoples work with quilt, 
> nor make it harder for people to share commits.
> 
> Len had apparently left a nice topic tree for you. You took that work, and 
> then destroyed it. And yes, it is noticeable: Jesse had shared some of the 
> work from Len by pulling one of the branches (the 'suspend' branch), and 
> then you literally re-wrote _public_ history, so now tohose patches are 
> duplicated.

It's not only about destroying work and history, it can be worse than that.

For example look at commits:

816c2eda3ce8fa7eb62f22e01e2ec7a3f7d677c0 (merged between 2.6.26-rc8 and -rc9)
and
cc7e51666d82aedfd6b9a033ca1a10d71c21f1ca (merged now)

The export to quilt and the lazy default fuzz setting of quilt added
aside of Andi's Signed-off-by the following gem:

commit cc7e51666d82aedfd6b9a033ca1a10d71c21f1ca
Author: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Tue Jun 24 22:57:12 2008 -0400

    dock: bay: Don't call acpi_walk_namespace() when ACPI is disabled.
    
    Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bay.c b/drivers/acpi/bay.c
index 61b6c5b..e6caf5d 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/bay.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/bay.c
@@ -380,6 +380,9 @@ static int __init bay_init(void)
 	if (acpi_disabled)
 		return -ENODEV;
 
+	if (acpi_disabled)
+		return -ENODEV;
+
 	/* look for dockable drive bays */
 	acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE, ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT,
 		ACPI_UINT32_MAX, find_bay, &bays, NULL);
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/dock.c b/drivers/acpi/dock.c
index bb7c51f..1e872e7 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/dock.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/dock.c
@@ -920,6 +920,9 @@ static int __init dock_init(void)
 	if (acpi_disabled)
 		return 0;
 
+	if (acpi_disabled)
+		return 0;
+
 	/* look for a dock station */
 	acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE, ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT,
 			    ACPI_UINT32_MAX, find_dock, &num, NULL);

[ Note the code duplication in both files ]

I stumbled accross this incidentally while looking at the recent merge
commits.

While this one looks odd but harmless, probably a full audit of all
the affected commits should be done.

Please revert the one I happened to notice. Patch below.

Thanks,

	tglx

----------->
Subject: APCI: revert duplicated patch
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

commit 816c2eda3ce8fa7eb62f22e01e2ec7a3f7d677c0
    dock: bay: Don't call acpi_walk_namespace() when ACPI is disabled.  

was merged between 2.6.26-rc8 and -rc9)

Due to rebasing the ACPI tree via quilt the same patch got applied
again via 

commit cc7e51666d82aedfd6b9a033ca1a10d71c21f1ca
    dock: bay: Don't call acpi_walk_namespace() when ACPI is disabled.  

Revert it, as it is obviously bogus.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

---
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bay.c b/drivers/acpi/bay.c
index e6caf5d..61b6c5b 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/bay.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/bay.c
@@ -380,9 +380,6 @@ static int __init bay_init(void)
 	if (acpi_disabled)
 		return -ENODEV;
 
-	if (acpi_disabled)
-		return -ENODEV;
-
 	/* look for dockable drive bays */
 	acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE, ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT,
 		ACPI_UINT32_MAX, find_bay, &bays, NULL);
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/dock.c b/drivers/acpi/dock.c
index 1e872e7..bb7c51f 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/dock.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/dock.c
@@ -920,9 +920,6 @@ static int __init dock_init(void)
 	if (acpi_disabled)
 		return 0;
 
-	if (acpi_disabled)
-		return 0;
-
 	/* look for a dock station */
 	acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE, ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT,
 			    ACPI_UINT32_MAX, find_dock, &num, NULL);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/