diff for duplicates of <ZesxeoyFZUeo-Z9F@google.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 9e6ea19..3af1c46 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 On Fri, Mar 08, 2024, Anup Patel wrote:
-> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 11:13?PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
+> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 11:13 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
 > >
 > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024, Anup Patel wrote:
 > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ the base, as the odds of there being a fix in Linus' tree aftern -rc2 that is
 
 And given that these were "queued" on February 12th, but are now based on -rc6,
 means that you reparented them at least once.  Rebasing/reparenting is explicitly
-documented as a Bad Idea?, because for all intents and purposes rebasing creates
+documented as a Bad Idea™, because for all intents and purposes rebasing creates
 a completely new commit, and thus invalidates much of the testing that was done
 on the prior incarnation of the branch/commits.
 
@@ -187,3 +187,8 @@ From Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst
   If, instead, rebasing is limited to private trees, commits are based on a
   well-known starting point, and they are well tested, the potential for
   trouble is low.
+
+_______________________________________________
+linux-riscv mailing list
+linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
+http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 1298019..3191a7e 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -2,13 +2,22 @@
  "ref\0Zen8qGzVpaOB_vKa@google.com\0"
  "ref\0CAAhSdy2Mu08RsBM+7FMjkcV49p9gOj3UKEoZnPAVk92e_3q=sw@mail.gmail.com\0"
  "From\0Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>\0"
- "Subject\0[GIT PULL] KVM/riscv changes for 6.9\0"
+ "Subject\0Re: [GIT PULL] KVM/riscv changes for 6.9\0"
  "Date\0Fri, 8 Mar 2024 07:40:42 -0800\0"
- "To\0kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org\0"
+ "To\0Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>\0"
+ "Cc\0Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>"
+  Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
+  Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
+  Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
+  Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>
+  Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>
+  KVM General <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
+  open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR RISC-V (KVM/riscv) <kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org>
+ " linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "On Fri, Mar 08, 2024, Anup Patel wrote:\n"
- "> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 11:13?PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:\n"
+ "> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 11:13\342\200\257PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:\n"
  "> >\n"
  "> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024, Anup Patel wrote:\n"
  "> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------\n"
@@ -112,7 +121,7 @@
  "\n"
  "And given that these were \"queued\" on February 12th, but are now based on -rc6,\n"
  "means that you reparented them at least once.  Rebasing/reparenting is explicitly\n"
- "documented as a Bad Idea?, because for all intents and purposes rebasing creates\n"
+ "documented as a Bad Idea\342\204\242, because for all intents and purposes rebasing creates\n"
  "a completely new commit, and thus invalidates much of the testing that was done\n"
  "on the prior incarnation of the branch/commits.\n"
  "\n"
@@ -195,6 +204,11 @@
  "  \n"
  "  If, instead, rebasing is limited to private trees, commits are based on a\n"
  "  well-known starting point, and they are well tested, the potential for\n"
-   trouble is low.
+ "  trouble is low.\n"
+ "\n"
+ "_______________________________________________\n"
+ "linux-riscv mailing list\n"
+ "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org\n"
+ http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
 
-93ec2078b2a43c2d6fa24a182de391e9d2af5b18db2094d2893dd9f5f4ae415a
+8c65190e602c64c600fbcadcb2c6743e7d7deb9386ed387f28dbe66bdaf765d9
