On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 04.10.2013, at 14:23, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> >
> > On 03.10.2013, at 06:14, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 08:08:44PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >>> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>
> >>> This was introduced by 85a0d845d8bb5df5d2669416212f56cbe1474c6b
> >>
> >> It's a good idea to give the headline of the commit as well as the ID.
> >> I also like to trim the ID to 10 characters or so. So it should look
> >> like this:
> >>
> >> This was introduced by 85a0d845d8 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S PR: Allocate
> >> kvm_vcpu structs from kvm_vcpu_cache").
> >>
> >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c: In function 'kvmppc_core_vcpu_create':
> >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c:1182:30: error: 'struct kvmppc_vcpu_book3s'
> >>> has no member named 'shadow_vcpu'
> >>> make[1]: *** [arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.o] Error 1
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Paul Mackerras <pau...@samba.org>
> >
> > Would you guys mind if I merge this into the offending patch? It's not
> > trickled into -next yet, so rebasing should work.
> >
> > If not, please resend with the fixed commit message.
>
> Eh - I must've missed v2 :). So that leaves only the question on whether
> you'd be ok to squash the patch instead. It'd help bisectability.
I'm OK with that. If you do, why don't you squash the first of the
two patches that I just sent into the commit it fixes as well?
Paul.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
