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