Re: [PATCH 00/24] MacBook Air patch sequence (v2)
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 08:33:56PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: I'm all for enabling new hardware like this, and overall, the patches aren't that bad, just want to verify this. And, I do have to tell you, curses, now I have no excuse to not buy that laptop! What kind of battery life do you get with these patches applied, out of curiosity? Darn it, I have a Macbook Air, but I use it for media consumption purposes. This would be a great temption to get a second one as a Linux box... - Ted ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
[PATCH 00/24] MacBook Air patch sequence (v2)
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 08:33:56PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > I'm all for enabling new hardware like this, and overall, the patches > aren't that bad, just want to verify this. > > And, I do have to tell you, "curses, now I have no excuse to not buy > that laptop!" What kind of battery life do you get with these patches applied, out of curiosity? Darn it, I have a Macbook Air, but I use it for media consumption purposes. This would be a great temption to get a second one as a Linux box... - Ted
Re: (Short?) merge window reminder
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote: I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before cutting 3.0.0! :-) So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be 3.0, not 3.0.0 - the stable team would get the third digit rather than the fourth one. If we change from 2.6.X to 3.X, then if we don't change anything else, then successive stable release will cause the LINUX_VERSION_CODE to be incremented. This isn't necessary bad, but it would be a different from what we have now. - Ted ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
(Short?) merge window reminder
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before > > cutting 3.0.0! :-) > > So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0", > not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than > the fourth one. If we change from 2.6.X to 3.X, then if we don't change anything else, then successive stable release will cause the LINUX_VERSION_CODE to be incremented. This isn't necessary bad, but it would be a different from what we have now. - Ted
