On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:53:31 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > OK, so this is an acceptable compromise for me too. > > > > What I think now is needed (from me) are three patch sets: > > > > 1. The final subarchitecture cleanups > > 2. The quirk model/smp ops additions > > 3. The voyager put back. > > Yes, that looks fine. > > You can have them in a single series for convenience if you want to > (it's probably easier for you to test that way) - but 3 separate > series are fine too, no strong preference either way - as long as > the internal structure and details follows the ordering and > parameters we outlined in previous mails. OK, given this looks like a rewrite of the voyager tree, I will drop it from linux-next for a while. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpCdnqYlH4PH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
