Re: Re: [PATCH 0/3] xen: Use PM/Hibernate events for save/restore/chkpt

From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Ian, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	Campbell <Ian.Campbell@eu.citrix.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Shriram Rajagopalan <rshriram@cs.ubc.ca>,
	"linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 0/3] xen: Use PM/Hibernate events for save/restore/chkpt
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:19:50 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1102251713560.19277@kaball-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201102241941.00984.rjw@sisk.pl>

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I believe it only "[PATCH 3/3] PM: pm.h - Add comments about Xen save/restore/chkpt use case"
> > 
> > (http://marc.info/?i=1298157158-5421-4-git-send-email-rshriram@cs.ubc.ca)
> 
> This particular one should go in _after_ the functional patches.
> 
> > I or Stefano (these patches are against Ian's tree which is againsts Stefano's
> > tree) can take the other patches and stick Pavel's Ack, Rafeal's Ack, Ian's Ack
> > on them and also my Signed-off for the Xen bits.
> > 
> > I think that would work?
> 
> In fact, I think it's better if all patches go through the Xen tree.
> 

I don't mind taking them but if they have to go after your
suspend-2.6/linux-next tree this would introduce a new dependency in the
branch I am preparing for linux-next myself.

Should I pull your suspend-2.6/linux-next tree into my linux-next branch?
Considering that this could create conflicts in linux-next if you
force-push your tree with some new changes and I don't update my version
of it, maybe it is better if I pull only a reduced version of it with
just the strict dependencies?