On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:57:23 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:31:59 +0200 Thomas Renninger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > it seems Len's test tree and Linus tree diverged a bit, at least with
> > this patch set things do not apply cleanly.
> >
> > Therefore I post these for discussion whether and in which kernel tree
> > they should end up before doing work for nothing.
> > If they are still a candidate for 2.6.24 (rather unintrusive), pls tell
> > me whether and when I should base them against Len's test/release branch
> > or whatever other tree.
> > If not, it would be great if they can be included into the -mm tree and
> > I can rebase them against this one.
>
> I staged the three acpi patches against Len's tree and I staged the hwmon
> patch against Mark's tree and I staged the I2C patch against Jean's tree.
>
> This means that if/when the ACPI patches have gone me->Len->Linus, I can
> send the I2C patch to Jean and the hwmon patch to Mark and we're all good.
Thanks for picking these patches, having them in -mm for some time is
exactly what we need. Let's see how many systems are affected by the
resource conflicts and how we can fix them
--
Jean Delvare
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
