Hi,
The patch I applied to -2 was rejected by upstream as although it fixed the issue with the original source, it also re-enabled a bug which was supposed to be fixed with the 2.6.35 release. Upstream has applied an alternate fix which is applied to this -3 release.
please signoff.
Ronald
On 13/08/10 18:38, Ronald van Haren wrote:
Hi,
The patch I applied to -2 was rejected by upstream as although it fixed the issue with the original source, it also re-enabled a bug which was supposed to be fixed with the 2.6.35 release. Upstream has applied an alternate fix which is applied to this -3 release.
please signoff.
Signoff i686. Did not test the bug fix specifically.
Allan
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
On 13/08/10 18:38, Ronald van Haren wrote:
Hi,
The patch I applied to -2 was rejected by upstream as although it fixed the issue with the original source, it also re-enabled a bug which was supposed to be fixed with the 2.6.35 release. Upstream has applied an alternate fix which is applied to this -3 release.
please signoff.
Signoff i686. Did not test the bug fix specifically.
Allan
I totally forgot about this one... someone for x86_64 ?
Ronald
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Ronald van Haren pressh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
On 13/08/10 18:38, Ronald van Haren wrote:
Hi,
The patch I applied to -2 was rejected by upstream as although it fixed the issue with the original source, it also re-enabled a bug which was supposed to be fixed with the 2.6.35 release. Upstream has applied an alternate fix which is applied to this -3 release.
please signoff.
Signoff i686. Did not test the bug fix specifically.
Allan
I totally forgot about this one... someone for x86_64 ?
Ronald
moved to core
Ronald
arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org