Re: Handling of suspend/hibernation patches

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Thursday, 3 of July 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 22:47:32 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Recently, we've had some problems with the handling of suspend/hibernation
> > patches, because they tend to touch multiple subsystems at a time.  As a
> > result, it usually is not clear which tree they should be included in and at
> > the moment there are suspend/hibernation patches in the PCI, ACPI, x86
> > trees, as well as in -mm.  Of course the resulting dependencies between those
> > trees are a pain to Stephen and their maintainers.
> > 
> > After the last Kernel Summit we tried to create a branch in the ACPI tree for
> > suspend/hibernation patches (thanks Len!) and that had worked quite well until
> > we started to work on the core device power management.  This coincided with
> > the creation of linux-next and collecting suspend/hibernation patches in the
> > ACPI tree became inconvenient.
> > 
> > Now, we could go back to the old way of handling suspend/hibernation patches,
> > which was to merge them through -mm, but the disadvantage of this would be that
> > the patches wouldn't go through linux-next.  However, I'd like
> > suspend/hibernation patches to be included in linux-next, so that they can get
> > as much testing as possible.
> 
> I need to get butt into gear and get most-of-mm into linux-next.  I'll
> be picking that up when 2.6.27-rc1 is done.
> 
> So we can just keep this tree in -mm (and hence linux-next) if you like.

Well, that will save me quite a bit patch management work. :-)

Let's keep that in -mm, then.

Thanks,
Rafael