On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:57:23 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:31:59 +0200 Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> 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-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
