On 3 September 2013 16:47, Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> wrote: > On 09/04/2013 01:34 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> The classic way for things to break is that a header >> update accidentally reverts something (because a >> previous update was from kvm-next and this one is >> from mainline, for example). Accidental updates against >> a kernel which is neither kvm-next nor mainline are >> the other common "broken" version of a header update >> patch. > > I can understand that but this update is a mainline kernel > update and it is not an accidental one but very specific :-/
Nobody has been saying there is a problem with this patch. We're just saying it should go via the kvm tree rather than the trivial patches tree. -- PMM
