Re: stable-proposed-updates: considering cpufrequtils
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 06:50 +0900, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 05:33:10PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 07:52 +0900, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> > Apologies for the delay in getting back to you about this.
and again :-( - although not quite as long this time, happily...
> > > + * Bulk load only helper modules. Linux 3.0 shuffled cpufreq modules
> > > + locations a bit and now cpu drivers and helpers are in the same directory
> > > + (closes: #636141).
> > > + * Use modprobe -b in loadcpufreq to honour blacklisted modules
> > > + (closes: #592488).
> > > + * Load powernow-k8 for AMD family 20 (i.e. AMD E-350 cpus)
> > > + (closes: #627811).
> > > + * Stop changing printk levels when loading cpufreq modules (closes: #624575
> > > + and closes: #596235).
> > I've been debating whether to accept all of the changes, and changed my
> > mind a few times while arguing with myself. :-) Have the changes been
> what is your current stance? :)
I'm edging towards acking all of them, but it partly depends on:
> > tested on a stable system?
> To be honest I haven't tried it myself on a stable system but I'll give
> it a go in the next days (towards the weekend most likely). The change
> that my have a funny dependency is the "-b" addition to modprobe but
> other than that it's all pretty safe and it's mostly removing
> unnecessary code or making the find predicate more specific.
> On the other hand there are a couple of backports of the whole package
> already so I don't expect many surprises.
Did you have chance to do the testing you mentioned here?