Re: [PATCH] kvm: powerpc: book3s: Fix build break for BOOK3S_32

["Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> writes:

> On 04.10.2013, at 14:23, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> 
>> On 03.10.2013, at 06:14, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 08:08:44PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> 
>>>> This was introduced by 85a0d845d8bb5df5d2669416212f56cbe1474c6b
>>> 
>>> It's a good idea to give the headline of the commit as well as the ID.
>>> I also like to trim the ID to 10 characters or so.  So it should look
>>> like this:
>>> 
>>> This was introduced by 85a0d845d8 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S PR: Allocate
>>> kvm_vcpu structs from kvm_vcpu_cache").
>>> 
>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c: In function 'kvmppc_core_vcpu_create':
>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c:1182:30: error: 'struct kvmppc_vcpu_book3s' has no member named 'shadow_vcpu'
>>>> make[1]: *** [arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.o] Error 1
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> 
>>> Acked-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
>> 
>> Would you guys mind if I merge this into the offending patch? It's not trickled into -next yet, so rebasing should work.
>> 
>> If not, please resend with the fixed commit message.
>
> Eh - I must've missed v2 :). So that leaves only the question on whether you'd be ok to squash the patch instead. It'd help bisectability.

Yes, it should be squashed if we can do that.

-aneesh