On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 02:53:16PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 2/12/19 2:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 02:15:36PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > >> On 2/12/19 2:04 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:39:21AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > >>>> On 2/12/19 8:11 AM, Peter Xu wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:06:42AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> OK I reverted the whole part dealing with vhost-user and reposted. > >>>>> > >>>>> I noticed that the merged pull request could possibly have squashed > >>>>> the below two patches (in previous pull) into one super patch > >>>>> (a56de056c91f87e1e): > >>>>> > >>>>> i386/kvm: ignore masked irqs when update msi routes > >>>>> contrib/vhost-user-blk: fix the compilation issue > >>>>> > >>>>> Here, the first patch lost its commit message, and the last patch lost > >>>>> its real author. ;) > >>>> > >>>> I suggest we revert a56de056c9 ASAP and reapply the both patches, this > >>>> will ease cherry-picking/downstream workflow. > >>> > >>> I don't see why does it help upstream. > >> > >> I'd have suggested the same if I had no idea what 'downstream workflow' > >> mean, simply to keep the tree clear and avoid to have unrelated changes > >> squashed altogether. > >> Commit a56de056c9 really looks messy. MSI/MSIX changes described by "fix > >> vhost-user-blk compilation". > >> Hopefully it won't trigger any problem which requires bisecting to it, > >> then contact Changpeng Liu asking him what he intented to do with his > >> commit. > >> Your call anyway :) > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Phil. > > > > > > OK these are good points. I'm not sure what happened but it looks like I > > screwed up when resolving some conflicts. Care posting a patchset > > looking sane? > > Yes, will do.
Thanks! Include the reverts in it pls. -- MST