On Oct 29 13:20, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 10/29/20 12:52 PM, Klaus Jensen wrote: > > On Oct 29 11:39, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 10:49, Klaus Jensen <i...@irrelevant.dk> wrote: > >>> > >>> From: Klaus Jensen <k.jen...@samsung.com> > >>> > >>> Hi Peter, > >>> > >>> The following changes since commit > >>> 1dc887329a10903940501b43e8c0cc67af7c06d5: > >>> > >>> Merge remote-tracking branch > >>> 'remotes/philmd-gitlab/tags/sd-next-20201026' into staging (2020-10-26 > >>> 17:19:26 +0000) > >>> > >>> are available in the Git repository at: > >>> > >>> git://git.infradead.org/qemu-nvme.git tags/nvme-next-pull-request > >>> > >>> for you to fetch changes up to 843c8f91a7ad63f8f3e4e564d3f41f3d030ab8a9: > >>> > >>> hw/block/nvme: fix queue identifer validation (2020-10-27 11:29:25 > >>> +0100) > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> nvme emulation patches for 5.2 > >>> > >>> - lots of cleanups > >>> - add support for scatter/gather lists > >>> - add support for multiple namespaces (adds new nvme-ns device) > >>> - change default pci vendor/device id > >>> - add support for per-namespace smart log > >> > >> Hi. This tag appears to have been signed with a GPG key > >> which isn't one that's been used before for an nvme pullreq > >> and which isn't on the public GPG servers... > >> > > > > Uhm. Keith, can we coordinate a keysigning? > > > > Would a signature by Keith on my key be acceptable to you Peter? That > > way Keith doesn't have to create a new tag and bomb the list again. > > Although list bombing isn't really a problem, if you don't modify > the patches, then you can simply post the cover (as v2) without > the patches. > > You can also get your key signed and ask Peter to retry your tag, > or push a different tag and ask again, replying to this cover. >
Thanks Phil!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
