From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.23-rc2 1/2] define clk_must_disable() Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:03:16 -0700 Message-ID: <200708061403.16311.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <200708061111.03407.david-b@pacbell.net> <20070806200446.GD3360@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <200708061338.08561.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200708061338.08561.david-b@pacbell.net> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Russell King Cc: Andrew Victor , Andrew Morton , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Monday 06 August 2007, David Brownell wrote: > > Please don't wrap up unreviewed patches as "important build fixes". >=20 > From my perspective, they've been reviewed for well over a year and > have just been waiting for me to get off my butt and be extremely > explicit that they need to merge. =A0(That is, not expect anyone to > just pick them up and merge.) Oh, and one more point in favor of merging this: they've been in use in Andrew Victor's 2.6 AT91 patches since last November. That would be yet another reason why nobody has noticed this build problem before. It's not just me; almost everyone doing AT91 work is *already using* these two patches, and has been doing so for most of the last year. > And since you asked for a build fix ... I have a hard time thinking > that anything else could really be the "right fix". =20