From: John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 17:01:24 -0700
> 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. The networking changes look fine to me: Acked-by: David S. Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
