From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: cpuidle Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:28:30 -0400 Message-ID: <200709232228.30768.lenb@kernel.org> References: <20070923175706.74afa5bf.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:36358 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754090AbXIXC3N (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:29:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070923175706.74afa5bf.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "Pallipadi, Venki" On Sunday 23 September 2007 20:57, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Whaaaaa? Seems that the cpuidle patches all got dropped, but the x86_64 > dynticks patches were fairly heavily dependent upon them. (iow: I'm > screwed). > > I can go back to the old version of git-acpi and retain the dynticks > patches or I can drop the dynticks patches. (Either way I remain screwed). > > What's happening? Yes, I dropped cpuidle on Friday with plans to re-merge it Monday. The reason is because I re-wrote my test tree Friday in prep for 2.6.24. As cpuidle had been merged multiple times, I needed to re-merge it and deal with the conflicts, and I ran out of time. What we should end up with on Monday is a single cpuidle patch that sits on top of 2.6.22, and a single patch that merges it up to 2.6.23. sorry for the disruption, -Len