On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 01:47:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, 7 of December 2008, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 10:00:35AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > So, to fix the issue at hand, I'd like the $subject patch to go first. Then, > > > > there is a major update of the new framework waiting for .29 in the Greg's > > > > tree (that's the main reason why nobody uses it so far, BTW) and I'd really > > > > prefer it to go next. After it's been merged, I'm going to add the mandatory > > > > suspend-resume things (save state and go to a low power state on suspend, > > > > restore state on resume) to the new framework in a separete patch. > > > > > > > > Is this plan acceptable? > > > > > > Sounds good to me. And assuming Jesse/Greg are all aboard, I'll just wait > > > for the pull requests from Jesse and Greg. > > > > No objection from me, I'll wait for Jesse to "go first" in the .29 merge > > window. > > Unfortunately, the merge of the $subject patch with the one in your tree > results in code that doesn't compile. Namely, some lines of code that the > $subject patch relies on are removed by the patch in your tree. > > If there is no objection from Jesse and if you don't mind, I'll prepare a > version of the $subject patch on top of the patch in your tree and send it to > you. I sure don't mind. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
