On Thursday, 3 of July 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 22:47:32 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Recently, we've had some problems with the handling of suspend/hibernation > > patches, because they tend to touch multiple subsystems at a time. As a > > result, it usually is not clear which tree they should be included in and at > > the moment there are suspend/hibernation patches in the PCI, ACPI, x86 > > trees, as well as in -mm. Of course the resulting dependencies between those > > trees are a pain to Stephen and their maintainers. > > > > After the last Kernel Summit we tried to create a branch in the ACPI tree for > > suspend/hibernation patches (thanks Len!) and that had worked quite well until > > we started to work on the core device power management. This coincided with > > the creation of linux-next and collecting suspend/hibernation patches in the > > ACPI tree became inconvenient. > > > > Now, we could go back to the old way of handling suspend/hibernation patches, > > which was to merge them through -mm, but the disadvantage of this would be that > > the patches wouldn't go through linux-next. However, I'd like > > suspend/hibernation patches to be included in linux-next, so that they can get > > as much testing as possible. > > I need to get butt into gear and get most-of-mm into linux-next. I'll > be picking that up when 2.6.27-rc1 is done. > > So we can just keep this tree in -mm (and hence linux-next) if you like. Well, that will save me quite a bit patch management work. :-) Let's keep that in -mm, then. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
