From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Guyader Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Add V4V to Xen Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:01:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20120614140125.GA22025@spongy> References: <1338476832-26653-1-git-send-email-jean.guyader@citrix.com> <4FC8D4B30200007800087D1D@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: George Dunlap Cc: Jan Beulich , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 01/06 02:24, George Dunlap wrote: > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 31.05.12 at 17:07, Jean Guyader wrote: > > > > Is there a particular reason this series got resent with no apparent > > change (and also none mentioned in the description here or in the > > individual patches)? All of the comments sent yesterday still apply, > > and I continue to consider patches 1-4 as unnecessary/broken. > > The date on the second set of e-mails is 15 minutes before the > original series. I presume this means that Jean sent the series but > it got held up for some reason, so sent it again 15 minutes later; and > the second series made it through but the first was held up until > today. > > Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to computer error. :-) > George is absolutely spot on, this is exactly what happen. Sorry about that :( Jean