From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PULL] virtio: virtio 1.0 support, misc patches Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 01:45:42 +0200 Message-ID: <20141211234542.GA9439@redhat.com> References: <20141211120248.GA8838@redhat.com> <20141212080705.50988d51@canb.auug.org.au> <20141211220157.GA22618@redhat.com> <20141212102426.187891e9@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141212102426.187891e9@canb.auug.org.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Linus Torvalds , pbonzini@redhat.com, ben@decadent.org.uk, David Miller , thuth@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:24:26AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:01:57 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > > > It was on linux next for a while, then I wanted to tweak the commit log > > for some messages a bit. > > So since I rewrote the history anyway, I went ahead and rebased it > > on v3.18, after this rebase it's been in linux-next for several days. > > Maybe you think you pushed it into a linux-next included branch (or > maybe you think I am fetching a branch that I am not), Oh. I thought linux-next is pulling vhost-next, when in fact it turns out it's pulling it's own linux-next branch. So it looks like I didn't update that branch in a while - now I see why it's a bit so quiet. It's probably best to keep it at linux-next branch, as it is: I've tweaked my push rules to update that branch now, and pushed again. Thanks a lot for letting me know! > but when I look > at those commits in my tree (as I fetch Linus' tree into mine) none of > them precede any of the next-* tags ... > > I am not doubting that these patches have been published and reviewed > and tested, all I am saying is that they have not been in linux-next > as those commits. You are right of course. > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au