On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 15 May 2012 21:20, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: >> On 05/15/2012 11:42 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> In this case it is a regression... > >> At what point did it regress? I don't recall win64 ever working uner TCG... > > Sorry, I had in mind the mmap thing, and got confused with what > I was quoting. > >>> Anyway, my point is not "these things must go in" but that it's very >>> hard to tell from this side whether a patch is in the state: >>> (a) in your queue and will go into this rc >>> (b) missed the boat for this rc but will be in the next >>> (c) completely overlooked and needs pinging/yelling about >>> (d) judged not important enough to justify fixing in this release >> >> It's it not tagged '1.1' than I am not considering it for 1.1. >> >> If it's tagged with 1.1 *and* in a subsystem with an active submaintainer, I >> would expect the submaintainer to handle it. I do keep track of it though >> until someone responds with "Thanks, Applied." and will follow up with >> patches that fall into this category. > >> If you've posted a patch for 1.1 and it's a couple days old without >> feedback, then you probably should ping the appropriate maintainer about it. >> >> FWIW, I don't see any pending 1.1 patches from you so I don't know if this >> is a theoretical concern or a practical one. > > My current concern is > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/158556/ > (submitted by Alex, although I see he forgot to tag it with "1.1").
Thanks, applied. > > I'll ping it... > > -- PMM >
