[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <995a64b0-a9bb-05ce-85d1-6b5ee25ec0ef@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2022 19:19:32 +0700
From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
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 11/4/22 18:06, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 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.
>
OK, thanks!
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Powered by blists - more mailing lists