On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> 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.
I'm OK with that. If you do, why don't you squash the first of the
two patches that I just sent into the commit it fixes as well?
Paul.
--
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
