On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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. Ok then, when the discussion (and the code) is completely settled I'll ask you if it is alright for me to pull your branch and have both in linux-next. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
