On Friday, February 25, 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > I believe it only "[PATCH 3/3] PM: pm.h - Add comments about Xen save/restore/chkpt use case" > > > > > > (http://marc.info/?i=1298157158-5421-4-git-send-email-rshriram@xxxxxxxxx) > > > > This particular one should go in _after_ the functional patches. > > > > > I or Stefano (these patches are against Ian's tree which is againsts Stefano's > > > tree) can take the other patches and stick Pavel's Ack, Rafeal's Ack, Ian's Ack > > > on them and also my Signed-off for the Xen bits. > > > > > > I think that would work? > > > > In fact, I think it's better if all patches go through the Xen tree. > > > > I don't mind taking them but if they have to go after your > suspend-2.6/linux-next tree this would introduce a new dependency in the > branch I am preparing for linux-next myself. > > Should I pull your suspend-2.6/linux-next tree into my linux-next branch? > Considering that this could create conflicts in linux-next if you > force-push your tree with some new changes and I don't update my version > of it, maybe it is better if I pull only a reduced version of it with > just the strict dependencies? It's not that simple, I think you'd need to pull my entire linux-next branch because of the dependencies between commits in there. Alternatively, I can take the entire $subject patchset. Still, I'd like the discussion to settle before anyway. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
