Hi Boaz, On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:52:21 +0200 Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This has proven itself already. I found some warnings on some ARCHs > concerning printk of u64 types. I have made a sweep and fixed all these > places and others. Good. That's partly what -next is for (to find the arch dependent problems). > If you could keep it for the next round it could be grate. So I can make > sure I got rid of all the warnings. Normally trees stay in linux-next until they are no longer needed (usually at least until they have been integrated into Linus' tree) and I automatically refetch the trees each day. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpeeXXYcqFyx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
