On Saturday, 12 of January 2008, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:11:52PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 04:49:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > err, no. pm-introduce-destroy_suspended_device.patch demolishes > > > > pm-acquire-device-locks-on-suspend-rev-3.patch > > > > > > > > Confused, giving up. > > > > > > I'm confused too, I have no idea what the proper order of things should > > > be either. Anyone want to give me a hint? > > > > Sorry for the confusion. The correct patch to apply is > > pm-acquire-device-locks-on-suspend-rev-3 (plus the attending > > style-fixups). It encompasses those earlier patches. > > Can someone resend this to me? Do I need to drop the patch I currently > have in my tree as well? Or put it before/after that one? > > > The real problem is that our current email workflow patterns don't > > provide a standardized way for maintainers to tell when a new patch > > submission is meant to override or replace an earlier submission (or > > even a set of earlier submissions). Does anybody have some suggestions > > for a good way to do this? > > Yeah, just tell me what you want me to do with it (drop an old one, > replace it, add it, etc.) We usually can handle this pretty well :) I'll repost the new patch along with instructions what to do with it. Greetings, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
