> Len, i'd *really* prefer it if patches changing arch/x86/ had a > longer test time in linux-next than what you are gave it here. I agree 100%, and I will do better in the future. This was very difficult timing for a merge window for me. > these patches were contentious when you last posted > them as an RFC to lkml ... The idle cleanup patches were contentious when I posed them because my original proposal deleted a bunch of code right away. Alan convinced me that the community doesn't move that fast, and that we should wallow in the swill for a while longer before deleting. Others volunteered to test the latest upstream kernel on APM hardware, giving APM's presence in the upstream kernel a life line. So all I did was add the recommended feature-removal's and warnings for the stuff which obviously should go. But if you see some of your favorite bits on the chopping block, you have at least 6 months to make a case for them:-) thanks, -Len -- 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
