From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [git pull?] clocksource: ACPI pmtmr bugfixes [Was: Re: ACPI PM-Timer on K6-3 SiS5591: Houston...] Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:25:46 -0700 Message-ID: <20080818132546.0dfcbf77.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20080818121924.6b61f7af.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080818193517.GA22097@isilmar.linta.de> <20080818200017.GA11247@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20080810101730.GA10024@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20080810162920.GA9860@comet.dominikbrodowski.net> <20080810190759.GA1879@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20080818190325.GA12581@comet.dominikbrodowski.net> <20080818121924.6b61f7af.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080818193517.GA22097@isilmar.linta.de> <20080818124755.162f24d1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080818200916.GA18209@comet.dominikbrodowski.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:37645 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752044AbYHRU0w (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:26:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080818200916.GA18209@comet.dominikbrodowski.net> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: andi@lisas.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, johnstul@us.ibm.com, hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, arjan@infradead.org, stable@kernel.org On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:09:16 +0200 Dominik Brodowski wrote: > Hi, > > > Could I trouble you to resend them as plain-old-patches, with full > > changelogs along with your thoughts about the suitablity for > > 2.6.2[5678].x please? > > patches will be sent as replies to this message. Thanks for taking care of > this; I should have written more meaningful texts. Also, I failed to > remember the second patch hasn't been tested yet .. > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:00:17PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > I wanted to test your 2nd patch (improved init), but was unable to do so > > (currently too busy due to large changes, plus distance to production system, > > downtime NOT appreciated ;). > > .. but still I think this is stuff for 2.6.27; not (yet) suitable for 2.6.26 > and 2.6.25 based on the -stable rules. > (cc stable) OK, thanks. I tagged these as Cc: [2.6.26.x, 2.6.25.x but not immediately] which is a bit rubbery. What do you think are the criteria for deciding when these are ready for the backports? Something like "after 2.6.28-rc1 if nothing blew up"?