On 6 November 2015 at 01:34, Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan....@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:42:15AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 3 October 2015 at 17:33, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 06:18:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 24/09/2015 15:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> >> > From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan....@linux.intel.com> >> >> > >> >> > Quote from Michael: >> >> > >> >> > We really should rename VHOST_RESET_OWNER to VHOST_RESET_DEVICE. >> >> >> >> Where is the corresponding Linux patch for this? >> >> >> >> I would like to fetch the updated headers for KVM, and this is breaking >> >> it. In fact, a patch that just renames the #define (without providing >> >> the old name for backwards compatibility) would be NACKed in upstream >> >> Linux. >> >> >> >> Paolo >> > >> > Right. And it turns out this whole approach is wrong. I intend to >> > revert this patch, and also drop the patch sending VHOST_RESET_OWNER on >> > device stop. >> >> This revert doesn't seem to have happened, I think, which means >> that this is one of the things which prevents a clean header-update >> against kvm/next. Could we get this fixed for rc0, please? > > My bad. I will fix it next week. What's the deadline for rc0 then?
rc0 is 12th November (http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/2.5). You need to also allow time for the patch to be reviewed and possibly taken via somebody's tree. thanks -- PMM
