[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86cza3q8q5.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2022 11:06:58 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Cc: Usama Arif <usama.arif@...edance.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
yezengruan@...wei.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
steven.price@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
fam.zheng@...edance.com, liangma@...ngbit.com,
punit.agrawal@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation
On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 01:48:21 +0000,
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/3/22 22:42, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > No, this is the correct course of action. There isn't any point in
> > having an *unrelated* change in a separate series. This is a
> > standalone change, posted as a standalone patch.
> >
> >> Please reroll your series [2] with suggestion applied.
> >
> > Or not.
> >
>
> You mean the series before this patch have already been applied,
> right?
This change is 100% independent from the series you quoted. Why should
there be a dependency between the two?
As for respinning the series at this stage for a documentation
formatting issue, this is pretty pointless, and only clutters people's
Inbox with redundant versions...
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists