On 04.10.2013, at 14:35, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> 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?
Because patch 1/2 spans two separate commits it would have to get squashed into (6aa82e, 70afec) and patch 2/2 doesn't make sense to get squashed anywhere :).
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
