From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59892) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T60ck-0008Bn-7A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:49:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T60cc-0000lQ-6K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:49:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1229) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T60cb-0000lM-U6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:48:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:50:05 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20120827145005.GB779@redhat.com> References: <6dcaad57552e08e4ec799d814cdcbd1c38c7f37b.1346069810.git.mst@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2 1/4] linux-headers: update to 3.6-rc3 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: gleb@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Jan Kiszka , avi@redhat.com, Anthony Liguori On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 01:42:03PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 27 August 2012 13:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Update linux-headers to version present in Linux 3.6-rc3. > > Header asm-x96_64/kvm_para.h update is needed for the new PV EOI > > feature. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin > > --- > > linux-headers/asm-s390/kvm.h | 2 +- > > linux-headers/asm-s390/kvm_para.h | 2 +- > > linux-headers/asm-x86/kvm.h | 1 + > > linux-headers/asm-x86/kvm_para.h | 7 +++++++ > > linux-headers/linux/kvm.h | 3 +++ > > 5 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > The latest version of update-linux-headers.sh should have caused > this update to include asm-generic/kvm_para.h, I think. Did the > script not pull that header in, or were you maybe using an old > version of the script or forgot to git add the new file? > > thanks > -- PMM I have no idea but adding new files is not the same as updating existing ones. Why don't you add it when you update headers to a version that actually uses it? -- MST