>>> On 08.03.16 at 13:39, <quan...@intel.com> wrote: > On March 08, 2016 8:29pm, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 19:09 +0800, Quan Xu wrote: >> > Signed-off-by: Quan Xu <quan...@intel.com> >> > CC: Keir Fraser <k...@xen.org> >> > CC: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> > CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> >> > CC: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com> >> > CC: Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravind.gopalakrish...@amd.com> >> > CC: Feng Wu <feng...@intel.com> >> > CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com> >> > CC: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> >> > >> I've gone through the code, and it looks fine. >> >> However, when trying to apply the patch, on top of this morning's staging, I >> got >> this: >> > Oh, sorry, it is not against this morning's staging. > I would try to send out patch against this morning's staging soon. Thanks.
Well, with e.g. >> [dario@Solace xen.git] $ patch -p1 < >> \[PATCH_2_2\]_IOMMU_spinlock\:_Make_the_pcidevs_lock_a_recursive_one. >> mbox >> patching file xen/arch/x86/domctl.c >> Hunk #1 succeeded at 472 (offset 45 lines). >> Hunk #2 succeeded at 497 (offset 45 lines). >> patching file xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmsi.c >> Hunk #1 succeeded at 388 with fuzz 1. >> Hunk #2 succeeded at 446 with fuzz 1 (offset 3 lines). ... this it must have been quite old a tree - this file didn't change in the last 4 months. I consider it rather unfriendly to post such a patch without RFC tag, and without stating that it's against a stale tree. Was the recent v6 of the 5-patch series this way too? If so, I'm glad I didn't spend time looking at it yet. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
