On 07/05/2010 12:58 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 09:52:55PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Monday 05 July 2010 21:48:01 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 12:42:59PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>>> On 07/05/2010 12:24 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Peter, if you're fine with this version. May I apply it? >>>>> Unless you have a tree for autofs. >>>>> >>>> Ian Kent is the maintainer of autofs4 and patches for autofs4 should go >>>> through him (or acked by him.) >>>> >>>> autofs 3 is officially unmaintained; I'm more than happy to have you >>>> push the autofs 3 bits of this patch. >>> >>> Sure, I can split up the patch and integrate the autofs 3 part, I'll send >>> the standalone autofs4 version to Ian. >> >> I think in this case it's really more appropriate to change both autofs3 >> and autofs4 together, to avoid interdependencies. Whichever way Ian >> prefers (ack the patch or take it) would work though. >> >> Arnd > > > Yeah indeed. Ian? >
For what it's worth, feel free to add my: Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
