Andrew, On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 16:57 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > They all look pretty innocuous to me. > > Could you please take a second look, decide if any of them should also be > in 2.6.22.x and let me know? i386-hpet-check-if-the-counter-works.patch pcspkr-use-the-global-pit-lock.patch are the only candidates. tglx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: generic clockevents/ (hr)time(r) patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
- Re: [stable] generic clockevents/ (hr)time(r) patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
- Re: generic clockevents/ (hr)time(r) patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- References:
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
- generic clockevents/ (hr)time(r) patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
- Re: generic clockevents/ (hr)time(r) patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Prev by Date: [PATCH -rt WIP] NMI-safe lightweight parallel-update -rt RCU
- Next by Date: Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Previous by thread: Re: generic clockevents/ (hr)time(r) patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Next by thread: Re: [stable] generic clockevents/ (hr)time(r) patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Index(es):
 |