On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:36:15AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Andreas, do you think this problem is sufficiently serious and the fix > sufficiently safe that I should merge it into 2.6.30? Or would it be > better to do a 2.6.30.x backport, thus allowing additional time for > consideration/testing/etc? Fix is sufficiently safe but problem might not be that serious. I've checked cpufreq-git tree today and Dave Jones added the patch yesterday to his tree. See http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davej/cpufreq.git;a=summary So I think it's best to do a backport to 2.6.30.x when .30 is released and let the patch slip into .31 via Dave's tree. But wait, I see that Dave added it to his fixes branch. So probable Dave sends a pull request with fixes for .30 and then the patch is merged into .30 anyway. Thanks, Andreas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
