From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for June 19 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:14:51 +0200 Message-ID: <20090629071451.GA20225@elte.hu> References: <20090619172622.05adb236.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090620150433.4e038676.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090622015427.c749a0d9.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:39489 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751611AbZF2HPL (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:15:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090622015427.c749a0d9.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Len Brown , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , sfi-devel@simplefirmware.org, x86@kernel.org * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus > > > (or ask him to fetch). It is allowed to be rebased if you > > > deem it necessary. > > > > The patches are tested on the pre-release platform that makes > > use of them. There have been several internal reviews and > > re-writes, but since we just got permission to release the > > patches last week, they've not been publically vetted yet. > > > > The content is quite close to what I plan to propose for > > upstream, but the format is not. I'll be re-factoring the > > series into "clean history" and senting them to LKML on Sunday > > night. > > > > I don't expect much comment on the generic part, but will want > > x86 maintainers to buy into the parts that touch their > > architecture. > > OK, then I think I need to hear from the x86 maintainers, at > least, before we include this. Yep, feel free, the SFI bits looked good in principle. Ingo