On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 05:21:59 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > On 05/07/2013 05:07 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 08:20:24 AM dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> From: dirk <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > > All queued up for a post-3.10-rc1 push as 3.10 material, but I have a couple > > of comments. > > > > First, the patches didn't apply for me cleanly. I needed to fix up one of > > them manually to make it apply and patch [5/6] didn't appear to be necessary > > at all (it made changes that had been made previously). Please check the > > bleeding-edge branch of my tree to see if the code is what you wanted and > > let me know (either way). > > > Srinivas's commit d1b6848 collided with my 5/6 patch. my patches were based off > of v3.9. Which branch of yours should I base my submissions on? Usually, linux-next is a safe bet. > linux-pm/bleeding-edge is correct. Good. > > Second, can you please CC your cpufreq submissions to linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx? > > That will allow me to use Patchwork for managing them, which is much more > > convenient than plain email. > > > > No problem Thanks! Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
