From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52434)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from
	<SRS0=K/ZJ=PR=ens-lyon.org=samuel.thibault@bounce.ens-lyon.org>)
	id 1ai9ZQ-0006K0-IW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:49:13 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from
	<SRS0=K/ZJ=PR=ens-lyon.org=samuel.thibault@bounce.ens-lyon.org>)
	id 1ai9ZN-0002wK-Aa
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:49:12 -0400
Received: from sonata.ens-lyon.org ([140.77.166.138]:37634)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from
	<SRS0=K/ZJ=PR=ens-lyon.org=samuel.thibault@bounce.ens-lyon.org>)
	id 1ai9ZN-0002wC-3R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:49:09 -0400
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:49:07 +0100
From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <20160321234907.GS4946@var.home>
References: <1458482736-7075-1-git-send-email-samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>
	<CAFEAcA9uZ4Z9ajrwKhFZaN+7NYF_iLezzGw+hNXWYfvWLX-i9Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9uZ4Z9ajrwKhFZaN+7NYF_iLezzGw+hNXWYfvWLX-i9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL] slirp: Fix memory leak on small incoming
	ipv4 packet
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: "J. Kiszka" <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Hello,

Peter Maydell, on Mon 21 Mar 2016 09:48:48 +0000, wrote:
> Generally the
> process for QEMU is that first patches are sent as normal [PATCH] mails,
> for code review. Patches should only be put into pull requests once
> they've been through the review process. (And then you can batch them
> up so you don't have to send me two pulls for one patch each.)

Ah OK. Since they were one-liners, I thought they didn't need the review
step.  Now resent for review.

Samuel