From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 00/18] KVM: s390: Fixes and features for kvm/next (4.6) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:00:35 +0100 Message-ID: <56BE01A3.4020801@redhat.com> References: <1455283382-62999-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <56BDFF66.6080003@redhat.com> <56BE0037.6090505@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: KVM , linux-s390 , Cornelia Huck , Jens Freimann , Alexander Graf To: Christian Borntraeger Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59003 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750961AbcBLQAj (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:00:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <56BE0037.6090505@de.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/02/2016 16:54, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > I need one patch for 4.4 as well (vs. 3 patches against 4.5-rc3). So bisect is broken > on 4.4 as well, I just had it fixed earlier. If these three patches are in Linus's tree, just send the pull request against that. It's okay if a submaintainer pull request brings back a few more commits from Linus's tree. Rebases aren't great, but no one should be basing a linux-next tree on kvm-s390/next so I guess that's not too evil a thing to do. What is the patch you need on top of 4.4? If the alternative is to rebase on top of 4.4 + "that patch", I can plan my pull so that it doesn't cause conflicts when I will send this stuff to Linus for the 4.6 merge window. Paolo > As you like, I can certainly rebase against 4.4, I am (un)happy with both.