Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes:
> Il 30/04/2013 14:16, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
>>
>> The patch version committed has an additional change in this file:
>>
>> @@ -88,7 +88,6 @@ static void pc_init1(MemoryRegion *system_memory,
>> void *fw_cfg = NULL;
>>
>> pc_cpus_init(cpu_model);
>> - pc_acpi_init("acpi-dsdt.aml");
>>
>> if (kvmclock_enabled) {
>> kvmclock_create();
>>
>> Was that accidental? Noticed because of a conflict with Igor's patches.
>
> Yes, it must have been introduced when applying, because this wasn't a
> pull request. I'll send a patch to revert.
I had a dirty tree which normally doesn't create problems. However, in
this case Paolo's patches no longer applied cleanly.
I have a script that will apply each patch allowing fuzz, and then
analyses the patch to do git add for any file touched by the patch.
This restriction normally prevents this type of problem from happening.
However, in this case, this patch touched the file containing the dirty
bits so it got picked up by accident.
I'll modify patches apply to fail if the tree is dirty which will
prevent this in the future.
>
>> Further, my Reviewed-by is missing on patch 1/8, so was maybe the
>> previous RFC version committed accidentally instead of this one?
Your Reviewed-by is missing because I applied the series before you sent
the Reviewed-by.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
>
> No, the RFC only had 6 patches and patches 6-7-8 were completely
> different (and broken).
>
> Paolo
