linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] at91: changes for next

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E6DCAF5.50607@atmel.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:03:49 +0200
From:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	"'linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org'" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Josef Holzmayr <holzmayr@...-elektrotechnik.de>,
	Nico Erfurth <ne@...urth.eu>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Andrew Victor <linux@...im.org.za>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] at91: changes for next

Le 10/09/2011 23:06, Arnd Bergmann :
> On Friday 09 September 2011, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> Can you please pull the following changes since commit ddf28352b80c86754a6424e3a61e8bdf9213b3c7:
>>
>>   Linux 3.1-rc5 (2011-09-04 15:45:10 -0700)
>>
>> They are available in the git repository at:
>>   git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git  at91-next
>>
>> They have been present on linux-arm-kernel for some time and where recently added in linux-next.
>> Stephen resolved some trivial conflicts relatives to the removal of a board file (Cf:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/9/96 ).
>>
>> A series by Thomas is touching the USB subsystem: ohci-at91.c but as most of changes are in the at91 directory, it makes more sense to take them in arm-soc.
> 
> Hi Nicolas,
> 
> I've resumed pulling patches and uploaded them to git.linaro.org while
> master.kernel.org continues to be unavailable.
> 
> I've decided to split your branch into two separate branches 'board'
> and 'devel' to better match the code from other soc trees in a way
> that I can send forward to Linus. Please check that the split trees
> actually make sense, and tell me if that's ok for you or if you would
> prefer them split differently.

I have checked and It is perfect for me.

Thanks a lot Arnd, bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

--
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/