On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, 04 May 2016 23:08:11 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > >> > But I'm less comfortable making the call on this one. It looks >> > relatively straight forward, but it would be good to have maintainer >> > acks before I add it to my tree. >> >> Agreed. Feel free to add my >> >> Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> >> >> at least (whoever picks it up). > > In reply to [1/3] John said > > : Looks ok at the first glance. I've queued these up for testing, > : however I only got #1 and #3 of the set. Are you hoping these two > : patches will go through tip/timers/core or are you looking for acks so > : they can go via another tree? > > However none of the patches are in linux-next. > > John had qualms about [2/3], but it looks like a straightforward > substitution in areas which will get plenty of testing
Yea. My main concern is just not stepping on any other maintainers toes. > I'll grab the patches for now to get them some external testing. I'd be just as happy if the set went through you Andrew. For the set: Acked-by: John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org> thanks -john
