Re: upstream resynch

2004-06-14 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 06:12:26PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: I've sent a number of bugfixes upstream for inclusion in 2.6.7, based on hch's breakup of the old cvs tree: patches/00_dont-dereference-netdev.name-before-register_netdev:2:This fixes Debian BTS #234817.

Re: upstream resynch

2004-06-14 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:12:10AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: The 3ware patch looks bogus, most of the others got sent upstream at least once before (sorry hch). Looks like I've been told which side bk trees the fixes are sitting in or otherwise which ones aren't in side bk trees

Re: upstream resynch

2004-06-14 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:35:49AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:12:10AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: The 3ware patch looks bogus, most of the others got sent upstream at least once before (sorry hch). Looks like I've been told which side bk trees the

Re: upstream resynch

2004-06-14 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:35:49AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: The 3ware one doesn't need the bugreport reopened. Some alternative completely different fix was merged that makes the patch for it unnecessary. So that's 100% of the patches to be dropped included upstream in some form or

upstream resynch

2004-06-13 Thread William Lee Irwin III
I've sent a number of bugfixes upstream for inclusion in 2.6.7, based on hch's breakup of the old cvs tree: patches/00_dont-dereference-netdev.name-before-register_netdev:2:This fixes Debian BTS #234817. patches/00_drivers-atkbd-quiten:2:This fixes Debian BTS #239036.