Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended (rev. 2)

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Saturday, 12 of January 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:11:52PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 04:49:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > > > err, no.  pm-introduce-destroy_suspended_device.patch demolishes
> > > > pm-acquire-device-locks-on-suspend-rev-3.patch
> > > > 
> > > > Confused, giving up.
> > > 
> > > I'm confused too, I have no idea what the proper order of things should
> > > be either.  Anyone want to give me a hint?
> > 
> > Sorry for the confusion.  The correct patch to apply is 
> > pm-acquire-device-locks-on-suspend-rev-3 (plus the attending 
> > style-fixups).  It encompasses those earlier patches.
> 
> Can someone resend this to me?  Do I need to drop the patch I currently
> have in my tree as well?  Or put it before/after that one?
> 
> > The real problem is that our current email workflow patterns don't 
> > provide a standardized way for maintainers to tell when a new patch 
> > submission is meant to override or replace an earlier submission (or 
> > even a set of earlier submissions).  Does anybody have some suggestions 
> > for a good way to do this?
> 
> Yeah, just tell me what you want me to do with it (drop an old one,
> replace it, add it, etc.)  We usually can handle this pretty well :)

I'll repost the new patch along with instructions what to do with it.

Greetings,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/