From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [PULL 0/7] ppc patch queue 2013-03-22 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:49:35 +0300 Message-ID: <20130331104935.GA21968@redhat.com> References: <1364250070.26945.18@snotra> <1364252043.26945.19@snotra> <1364253381.26945.20@snotra> <2EB96F21-A7C5-420A-9D4F-CE0358D15657@suse.de> <20130326013312.GO22179@redhat.com> <1364315862.469.0@snotra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Alexander Graf , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, "kvm@vger.kernel.org mailing list" , Marcelo Tosatti To: Scott Wood Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1364315862.469.0@snotra> Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:37:42AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 03/25/2013 08:33:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:35:09AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> > >> On 26.03.2013, at 00:16, Scott Wood wrote: > >> > >> > On 03/25/2013 05:59:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> >> On 25.03.2013, at 23:54, Scott Wood wrote: > >> >> > On 03/25/2013 05:32:11 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> >> >> On 25.03.2013, at 23:21, Scott Wood wrote: > >> >> >> > -next? These are bugfixes, at least partially for > >regressions from 3.8 (that I pointed out before the bugs were > >merged!), that should go into master. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Also, what about: > >> >> >> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/226227/ > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > You've got all four patches in kvm-ppc-3.9 as of a few > >weeks ago -- will you be requesting a pull for that soon? > >> >> >> Sigh. I guess I've screwed up the whole "let's make -next > >an unusable tree and fix regressions in a separate one" workflow > >again. Sorry for that. > >> >> >> Since the patches already trickled into kvm's next branch, > >all we can do now is to wait for them to come back through stable, > >right? Marcelo, Gleb? > >> >> > > >> >> > Well, you can still submit that kvm-ppc-3.9 pull request. :-) > >> >> I can, but nobody would pull it, as it'd create ugly merge > >commits when 3.10 opens > >> > > >> > That's a lousy excuse for leaving bugs unfixed. > >> > >> I agree. So if it doesn't hurt to have the same commits in > >kvm/next and kvm/master, I'd be more than happy to send another > >pull request with the important fixes against kvm/master as well. > >> > >If it will result in the same commit showing twice in the Linus > >tree in 3.10 we cannot do that. > > Why? > Because Linus distastes it and mat refuse to pull. There is a way to avoid such double commits: push fix to Linus tree and merge it back to next. -- Gleb.