On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:35:49 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:44:33PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 06:35:04 -0700 (PDT) > > no-re...@patchew.org wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Your series failed automatic build test. Please find the testing commands > > > and > > > their output below. If you have docker installed, you can probably > > > reproduce it > > > locally. > > > > > > > Heh... of course patchew doesn't know about Stefan's series. :) > > > > Is there an appropriate way to avoid complaints when sending a patchset that > > isn't based on QEMU master ? > > It's a good idea to be explicit which tree does the patchset > target, and on top of which patches it is applied. > I thought that referring to the current patchset to eradicate exit() from the virtio code was enough. But I agree it isn't that explicit. > qemu master is kind of the default, but even then it's > a good idea to tell everyone which hash it was based on - > imagine someone trying to use your patchset several years from now. > I understand. I'll try to remember that next time. In the case of a patchset which isn't committed yet, I like the suggestion to put the Message-Id you made in another mail. Cheers. -- Greg
