On 04.10.2013, at 14:23, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 03.10.2013, at 06:14, Paul Mackerras wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 08:08:44PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >>> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> This was introduced by 85a0d845d8bb5df5d2669416212f56cbe1474c6b >> >> It's a good idea to give the headline of the commit as well as the ID. >> I also like to trim the ID to 10 characters or so. So it should look >> like this: >> >> This was introduced by 85a0d845d8 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S PR: Allocate >> kvm_vcpu structs from kvm_vcpu_cache"). >> >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c: In function 'kvmppc_core_vcpu_create': >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c:1182:30: error: 'struct kvmppc_vcpu_book3s' has no member named 'shadow_vcpu' >>> make[1]: *** [arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.o] Error 1 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Acked-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx> > > Would you guys mind if I merge this into the offending patch? It's not trickled into -next yet, so rebasing should work. > > If not, please resend with the fixed commit message. Eh - I must've missed v2 :). So that leaves only the question on whether you'd be ok to squash the patch instead. It'd help bisectability. 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