[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyFTW8mSwe3s2VfM=Y7AYqKgz31gqRCHQmH3C1byOeJdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 16:17:39 -0400
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM changes for 4.8 merge window
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> No, I don't use the merge from linux-next directly. I just re-generate
> the merge myself, and if the pull request then includes a merge
> resolution (either as just a verbal description, or a patch or by
> having a separate "merged" test-branch), I will compare my merge with
> that one.
Ok, the KVM merge was indeed the most painful one this merge window so
far. Which isn't saying all that much, since this merge window has so
far been pretty good (knock wood).
Let's see if I got everything right. I did pick up the fixup patch
from Sudip and made it part of the merge, so that hopefully it's all
complete and also bisectable.
Please do check it out. And let's hope the KVM people have learnt
their lesson and we won't have these messy merges in the future.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists