On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 04:49:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > err, no. pm-introduce-destroy_suspended_device.patch demolishes > > pm-acquire-device-locks-on-suspend-rev-3.patch > > > > Confused, giving up. > > I'm confused too, I have no idea what the proper order of things should > be either. Anyone want to give me a hint? Sorry for the confusion. The correct patch to apply is pm-acquire-device-locks-on-suspend-rev-3 (plus the attending style-fixups). It encompasses those earlier patches. The real problem is that our current email workflow patterns don't provide a standardized way for maintainers to tell when a new patch submission is meant to override or replace an earlier submission (or even a set of earlier submissions). Does anybody have some suggestions for a good way to do this? Alan Stern - 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
