From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.32.12] KVM: remove unused
 load_segment_descriptor_to_kvm_desct
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:22:06 -0700
Message-ID: <20100427162206.GA8668@suse.de>
References: <4BD5D34E.4080503@web.de>
 <20100427061733.GA10044@redhat.com>
 <4BD69521.8080204@redhat.com>
 <20100427074609.GB10044@redhat.com>
 <20100427141414.GA19920@amt.cnet>
 <20100427144355.GA7062@suse.de>
 <20100427145220.GB22154@redhat.com>
 <20100427145641.GB7215@suse.de>
 <20100427161649.GG23249@amt.cnet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, stable@kernel.org,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>,
	kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60144 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756283Ab0D0QWN (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:22:13 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100427161649.GG23249@amt.cnet>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:16:49PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 07:56:41AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 05:52:20PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 07:43:55AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:14:14AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Function is now unused.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Was this patch also upstream?  Why does stable need it?
> > > > 
> > > It is upstream, but as part of another commit. My guess is that when
> > > patches were ported to stable this chunk was lost due to wrong merge
> > > resolving.
> > 
> > Ok, but as this patch doesn't do anything, why is it needed in -stable?
> 
> Because it fixes a warning reported on the mailing list.

What mailing list?

> > Also, this type of information (why it isn't upstream), is REQUIRED in
> > order to be accepted.  Please include it.
> 
> Sorry about that, will include proper changelog in the future.

Can you resend this one, with such changelog information, so I can apply
it?

thanks,

greg k-h