From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756117Ab0CLDWE (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:22:04 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:12989 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755194Ab0CLDWB (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:22:01 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,624,1262592000"; d="scan'208";a="500035527" From: Sheng Yang Organization: Intel Opensource Technology Center To: Stefano Stabellini Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] PV on HVM Xen Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:23:33 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-19-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Ian Pratt , Keir Fraser References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201003121123.33935.sheng@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 10 March 2010 23:46:54 Stefano Stabellini wrote: > Hi all, Stefano, And next time when you send out the patch, please be more respect to my work. You dropped all the original author(me) of patchset, and only add a sign-off for me. If you don't aware the difference, here is a snippet of linux/Documentation/SummittingPatches 532 The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body, 533 and has the form: 534 535 From: Original Author 536 537 The "from" line specifies who will be credited as the author of the 538 patch in the permanent changelog. If the "from" line is missing, 539 then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine 540 the patch author in the changelog. As you see, the first two kernel patches of mine contained file from Jeremy and Keir, and I add the "From" for them properly to respect their works. Another thing is, you were keeping using my old patches as your base, while I was working with the reviewers to update the patch quickly. I don't think that's a kind of respect to both reviewers' and my work. You would duplicate reviewer's effect, especially you always repost the whole patch(and drop my authorship) rather than the different part. I've split patches in order to provide a code base for further development, but you complete ignored them and keeping post the whole patchset based on my old patches. Please be more professional. Thanks. -- regards Yang, Sheng > this is a reduced and rebased version of the patch series I sent > yesterday "enhanced PV on HVM": this series is based on Linux 2.5.32 and > can be applied now, it includes everything but the pirq remapping > related functions that are not ready to be upstreamed at the moment. > > Therefore it just achieves the goal of enabling PV devices in Linux > running in a Xen HVM domain, it doesn't allow event channels delivery in > place of interrupts. > > The patch series consists of 5 patches, each patch comes with a detailed > description. > In order for this to work we also need a patch for Xen, that is being > worked on as we speak. > > Any comment, critic or suggestion is very welcome. > > Cheers, > > Stefano > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >