From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: backport requests for 4.x-testing Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:38:08 +0000 Message-ID: <4F588C10.2060707@citrix.com> References: <4F573C28.1050305@citrix.com> <1331149122.14355.4.camel@cthulhu.hellion.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1331149122.14355.4.camel@cthulhu.hellion.org.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/03/12 19:38, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 05:44 -0500, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 07/03/12 09:43, Keir Fraser wrote: >>> On 06/03/2012 11:04, "Andrew Cooper" wrote: >>>> 24542, 24543, 24570, 24571 (xenoprof fixes) >>> These changesets do not relate to xenoprof?? >> So they are not. It appears that there was an off-by-6 numbering error >> in our patch queue for these patches. Apologies for that. > These rev numbers are not globally meaningful, you need to use the node > hash if you want to reliably refer to particular changesets. The node hashes were correct, which is how I verified the patches after the error was noticed. I just naively assumed that the patches in the "explicitly from xen-unstable.hg" section would have the correct rev numbers as well. I have checked all other patches and am now fairly happy that they are correct, and shall be more vigilant as new patches are being added. -- Andrew Cooper - Dom0 Kernel Engineer, Citrix XenServer T: +44 (0)1223 225 900, http://www.citrix.com