From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 15 00:42:29 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3A737B401 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 00:42:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brian.webcom.it (brianlap.inet.it [213.92.1.190]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D316043FBF for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 00:42:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andrea@webcom.it) Received: by brian.webcom.it (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 065BE2C; Thu, 15 May 2003 09:42:25 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:42:25 +0200 From: Andrea Campi To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20030515074225.GA23529@webcom.it> References: <20030509141805.GA815@webcom.it> <20030509201530.GC631@laptop.6bone.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030509201530.GC631@laptop.6bone.nl> X-Echelon: BND CIA NSA Mossad KGB MI6 IRA detonator nuclear assault strike User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [acpi-jp 2203] Re: 0228 regressions on Thinkpad 570E X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 07:42:29 -0000 On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:15:31PM +0200, Mark Santcroos wrote: > On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 04:18:06PM +0200, Andrea Campi wrote: > > May 9 16:03:16 brian kernel: acpi_cmbat0: battery initialization failed, giving up > > May 9 16:03:16 brian kernel: acpi_cmbat1: battery initialization failed, giving up > > > > where before the last import, I only got the message about acpi_cmbat1 (which albeit > > not correct is ok, since the battery is not there). > > I've traced this to the BIF_ object. I'm trying to trace down where the > length of 0 is introduced. I'm not sure what you're referring to; I've read your other messages and it seems to me that the issue I'm seeing is completely unrelated to the one you're seeing. I've never had a message about 0 length buffers; in fact, the only similarity I can see is that both appeared after the latest import, and that's all. Regardless, this bug is not very interesting; the other one I mentioned (temperature evalutating to 65535 (= (short)-1) is worse. Bye, Andrea -- Intel: where Quality is job number 0.9998782345!