From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com>,
fam.zheng@bytedance.com, punit.agrawal@bytedance.com,
linux@armlinux.org.uk, liangma@liangbit.com,
steven.price@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2022 11:06:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86cza3q8q5.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4b2b78c6-9903-1247-9d16-fc6270aa34fc@gmail.com>
On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 01:48:21 +0000,
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/3/22 22:42, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > No, this is the correct course of action. There isn't any point in
> > having an *unrelated* change in a separate series. This is a
> > standalone change, posted as a standalone patch.
> >
> >> Please reroll your series [2] with suggestion applied.
> >
> > Or not.
> >
>
> You mean the series before this patch have already been applied,
> right?
This change is 100% independent from the series you quoted. Why should
there be a dependency between the two?
As for respinning the series at this stage for a documentation
formatting issue, this is pretty pointless, and only clutters people's
Inbox with redundant versions...
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Cc: Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
yezengruan@huawei.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
steven.price@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
fam.zheng@bytedance.com, liangma@liangbit.com,
punit.agrawal@bytedance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2022 11:06:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86cza3q8q5.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4b2b78c6-9903-1247-9d16-fc6270aa34fc@gmail.com>
On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 01:48:21 +0000,
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/3/22 22:42, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > No, this is the correct course of action. There isn't any point in
> > having an *unrelated* change in a separate series. This is a
> > standalone change, posted as a standalone patch.
> >
> >> Please reroll your series [2] with suggestion applied.
> >
> > Or not.
> >
>
> You mean the series before this patch have already been applied,
> right?
This change is 100% independent from the series you quoted. Why should
there be a dependency between the two?
As for respinning the series at this stage for a documentation
formatting issue, this is pretty pointless, and only clutters people's
Inbox with redundant versions...
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Cc: Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
yezengruan@huawei.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
steven.price@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
fam.zheng@bytedance.com, liangma@liangbit.com,
punit.agrawal@bytedance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2022 11:06:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86cza3q8q5.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4b2b78c6-9903-1247-9d16-fc6270aa34fc@gmail.com>
On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 01:48:21 +0000,
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/3/22 22:42, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > No, this is the correct course of action. There isn't any point in
> > having an *unrelated* change in a separate series. This is a
> > standalone change, posted as a standalone patch.
> >
> >> Please reroll your series [2] with suggestion applied.
> >
> > Or not.
> >
>
> You mean the series before this patch have already been applied,
> right?
This change is 100% independent from the series you quoted. Why should
there be a dependency between the two?
As for respinning the series at this stage for a documentation
formatting issue, this is pretty pointless, and only clutters people's
Inbox with redundant versions...
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-04 11:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-03 13:12 [PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation Usama Arif
2022-11-03 13:12 ` Usama Arif
2022-11-03 13:12 ` Usama Arif
2022-11-03 13:45 ` Steven Price
2022-11-03 13:45 ` Steven Price
2022-11-03 13:45 ` Steven Price
2022-11-03 13:55 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2022-11-03 13:55 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2022-11-03 13:55 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2022-11-03 15:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-03 15:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-03 15:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-04 1:48 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2022-11-04 1:48 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2022-11-04 1:48 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2022-11-04 11:06 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2022-11-04 11:06 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-04 11:06 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-04 12:19 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2022-11-04 12:19 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2022-11-04 12:19 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2022-11-03 15:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-03 15:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-03 15:47 ` Marc Zyngier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=86cza3q8q5.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=bagasdotme@gmail.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=fam.zheng@bytedance.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=liangma@liangbit.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=punit.agrawal@bytedance.com \
--cc=steven.price@arm.com \
--cc=usama.arif@bytedance.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.