On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:28:30 -0400 Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sunday 23 September 2007 20:57, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Whaaaaa? Seems that the cpuidle patches all got dropped, but the x86_64 > > dynticks patches were fairly heavily dependent upon them. (iow: I'm > > screwed). > > > > I can go back to the old version of git-acpi and retain the dynticks > > patches or I can drop the dynticks patches. (Either way I remain screwed). > > > > What's happening? > > Yes, I dropped cpuidle on Friday with plans to re-merge it Monday. > > The reason is because I re-wrote my test tree Friday in prep for 2.6.24. > As cpuidle had been merged multiple times, I needed to re-merge it and > deal with the conflicts, and I ran out of time. > > What we should end up with on Monday is a single cpuidle patch > that sits on top of 2.6.22, and a single patch that merges it up to 2.6.23. > I really don't know what I did, but for some reason the patches all applied after I fiddled with something. Maybe I broke something, dunno. I did drop a few acpi patches which were dependent upon cpuidle: -acpi-suspend-consolidate-handling-of-sx-states.patch -acpi-suspend-consolidate-handling-of-sx-states-addendum.patch but they were staged _after_ the dynticks patches so I dunno what's going on. I guess when I try to compile this lot I'll have a better idea... ho hum. I hope I haven't lost any patches during this little episode. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
