From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoffer Dall Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: arm64: Introduce default dummy save/restore functions Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:30:24 +0200 Message-ID: <20150716133024.GF7845@cbox> References: <248fcfc798e243b618c5275eef8aa333253fd4da.1436874248.git.p.fedin@samsung.com> <55A5007A.4040802@arm.com> <020d01d0be35$5d3bab00$17b30100$@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: 'Marc Zyngier' , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, 'Eric Auger' To: Pavel Fedin Return-path: Received: from mail-la0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41]:33250 "EHLO mail-la0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752552AbbGPNaK (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:30:10 -0400 Received: by laem6 with SMTP id m6so43528122lae.0 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 06:30:09 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <020d01d0be35$5d3bab00$17b30100$@samsung.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:02:39PM +0300, Pavel Fedin wrote: > Hello! > > > You may want to check commit 8a14849, which makes this whole patch > > irrelevant. > > Thank you very much for pointing out, i will recheck. > My patches are based on linux-stable.git, should i base them on something else? > A recent mainline -rc or kvm/next or kvmarm/next is generally preferred. Basing upstream patches on stable is a bit weird. -Christoffer