On Sat, 4 Feb 2012, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 04 2012, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > Thanks. Actually, it recently occurred to me, that patches 3 and 10 should > > actually be merged into one. So, if you like, I can produce a v3 with that > > taken into account. The result would be exactly the same, I literally > > would just apply #10 on top of #3 and commit the result with the same > > commit description as the v2 of #3. > > Sure. Ok, will do asap. > > Shall I also rebase v3 on top of mmx-next and fix the failing patch? The > > two ARM patches can be applied separately, but they have to go in after > > this series then. Either way is ok with me, pulling all via mmc has the > > advantage of not having to synchronise the pulls, but then the conflict > > probability rises of course. > > I'm happy to take the ARM patches, but I'll need ACKs from the relevant > arch maintainers to do that. Sure, that's what I meant. Sorry for not mentioning explicitly. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
