On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 01:47 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 09/04/2013 01:34 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On 3 September 2013 16:28, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 09/03/2013 08:42 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>> This shouldn't be routed through trivial in general as things broke too > >>> often in this area. > >> > >> > >> Sorry for my ignorance, but this is The Kernel, it is already there, broken > >> or not, even if it is broken, qemu cannot stay isolated, no? > >> This is a mechanical change, no more. > > > > The classic way for things to break is that a header > > update accidentally reverts something (because a > > previous update was from kvm-next and this one is > > from mainline, for example). Accidental updates against > > a kernel which is neither kvm-next nor mainline are > > the other common "broken" version of a header update > > patch. > > I can understand that but this update is a mainline kernel update and it is > not an accidental one but very specific :-/ I was under the impression that we were only ever updating linux-headers from mainline, never from kvm-next. Therefore any mainline tag should be a reasonable re-base target. Thanks, Alex -- 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
