From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] 2.6.17 merge additions
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:05:53 +0000
Message-ID: <45E7F701.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
References: <45D33F3C.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <45D33F3C.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com> 14.02.07 16:56 >>>
>Following will be a set of patches that adjust 2.6.17 merges we had done
>differently in our internal tree, and that I think shouldn't get lost. There
>is no particular ordering among them, so if any seems questionable, others
>can still be applied.

Before submitting 2.6.18 stuff we were missing from the -unstable merge,
is it possible to get an understanding why patches 5 (pc speaker device
registration in domU) and 8 (early DMI scan) of the 2.6.17 set were not
taken?

Thanks, Jan