On March 08, 2016 9:49pm, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >>> 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? Yes, sorry, I didn't rebase since from v1. :(:( I will try to rebase against current staging and send out new patch sets.
Quan > If so, I'm glad I didn't spend time looking at it yet. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
