On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 11:35 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > 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. Yes, I think that's the correct thing in the circumstances. Thanks for running it through linux-next; it certainly turned up a couple of problems I wouldn't have seen otherwise. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
