On 02/12/2016 05:08 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 02/12/2016 05:00 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 12/02/2016 16:54, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>> I need one patch for 4.4 as well (vs. 3 patches against 4.5-rc3). So bisect is broken >>> on 4.4 as well, I just had it fixed earlier. >> >> If these three patches are in Linus's tree, just send the pull request >> against that. It's okay if a submaintainer pull request brings back a >> few more commits from Linus's tree. > > Not yet in Linus tree (cgroup-fixes mostly) > >> >> Rebases aren't great, but no one should be basing a linux-next tree on >> kvm-s390/next so I guess that's not too evil a thing to do. > > Yes, kvm-s390/next can certainly be rebased, right now I do not have a working > upstream commit >4.4. > > What I could do is to use my old pull request for kvm/next that was > targetted for 4.5. That tree did survive some testing, so basically rebase > against kvm-s390-next-4.5-3 ? Hmmm, nope. This has some fallout that we both have to fix as conflicts. I will simply retest the 4.5 branch with cherry-picks and thp disabled. Christian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
