On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 9:27 AM Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 12:44:53AM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > > Some values passed into "report" as "pass/fail" are larger than the > > size of the parameter. Instead use a status enum so that the size of the > > argument no longer matters. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bill Wendling <morbo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > The threading of these mails has me all kinds of confused. What is the > relationship between all these patches? Did you perhaps intend to send > some of these as v2? > > [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/2] Use a status enum for reporting pass/fail > [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 2/2] Use a status enum for reporting pass/fail > [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/1] x86: use pointer for end of exception table > [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 2/2] x86: use pointer for end of exception table Yes, the later ones are meant as v2. I'm not familiar with the patch submission policy via emails. :-( -bw
