Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
Yes, it should be squashed if we can do that.
-aneesh
--
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
