From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48860) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YB8cm-0001tb-S4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:03:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YB8cX-0000Y5-MR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:03:40 -0500 Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.137]:52825) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YB8cX-0000X2-HP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:03:25 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e7.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:03:24 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Michael Roth In-Reply-To: <54B582A7.2030805@redhat.com> References: <1420738472-23267-1-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <54B00F8E.1010102@gmail.com> <54B0594D.7070401@redhat.com> <20150113174924.GA2291@gandi.net> <54B56892.1080806@redhat.com> <20150113195320.6646.32373@loki> <54B582A7.2030805@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20150113210317.6646.73580@loki> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:03:17 -0600 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Patch Round-up for stable 2.1.3, freeze on 2015-01-14 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , Marcel Apfelbaum , William Dauchy Cc: qemu-devel , qemu-stable Quoting Paolo Bonzini (2015-01-13 14:40:07) > On 13/01/2015 20:53, Michael Roth wrote: > > 364c3e6, "vl.c: fix regression when reading machine type from config fi= le"? > > = > > I've gone ahead and applied from uq/uq/master, but still waiting on > > = > > "vl.c: fix regression when reading memory size from config file" to be = picked > > up by a maintainer. > = > This is now fa31bf14294cbdf63de5dde8961c2ebaf7167c69 in uq/master. > = > This is not a regression as far as I know, it just never worked. I > don't feel too comfortable including that patch. That doesn't seem rather hairy for a non-regression. Maybe I'll off now, we can maybe reconsider for 2.2.1 > = > Paolo