On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:44 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 17:52:00 +0800, korantwork@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > VMCB_AVIC_APIC_BAR_MASK is defined twice with the same value in svm.h, > > which is meaningless. Delete the duplicate one. > > Applied to kvm-x86 svm, thanks! > > In the future, please don't use "PATCH REBASED". If you're sending a new > version of a patch that's been rebased, then the revision number needs to be > bumped. The fact that the only change is that the patch was rebased isn't > relevant as far as versioning is concerned, it's still a new version. The > cover letter and/or ignored part of the patch is where the delta between > versions should be captured. > > And in this case, there really was no need to send a new version, the original > patch still applies cleanly. I suspect that the REBASED version was sent as a > form of a ping, which again is not the right way to ping a patch/series. If you > want to ping, please reply to the original patch. Unnecessarily sending new > versions means more patches to sort through, i.e. makes maintainers lives harder, > not easier. > Firstly, I'm so so SORRY to burden you in this way. I found the last patch can't be am directly, so I send a new patch with the last rebased code. I used to believe that this would alleviate your burden, but unfortunately, it had the opposite effect. Again, sorry for my wrong operation. Thanks~
