| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 11:02:14 +0200 From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] mach-ux500: update and move cpufreq driver 2011/5/10 Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>: > Haven't had chance to really read much patches the last few days > (travelling until the 16th). Due to the patch collisions we'll keep > seeing on kconfig/Makefiles, should these go via the cpufreq tree, > or do people want to still push them through their respective arch trees ? I pushed a patch series yesterday that basically deactivates the cpufreq driver in the mach-ux500, moves it over to drivers/cpufreq, updates it, then reactivates it in the new place with a patch to the Makefile. Of these changes only the last patch will collide with your tree, so I pushed all of them except that one to linux-next. The last patch I plan to submit to Torvalds directly after both trees have gone into the merge window. Can you please look into this and ACK the patches if they seem OK? Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists