On 08/20/2014 10:05 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 20.08.14 13:38, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> On 08/20/2014 09:20 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 20.08.14 12:20, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >>>> On 07/17/2014 04:30 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >>>>> On 07/15/2014 06:29 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>>> Il 14/07/2014 05:17, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto: >>>>>>>>> No, you should politely bother them again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That does not seem helping though :-/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, patch 1 is the same as v6 and for the others Cornelia and Alex can >>>>>> ack it. It looks good to me though. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me clarify things here. >>>>> >>>>> Alex rb'ed to 0/4, Cornelia rb'ed 2/4 and 3/4, so I put Alex's rb to >>>>> 1&2&3&4&5, Cornelia's rb to 2&3, rebase it on top of the current upstream, >>>>> repost after 2.1 is released and resume annoying people again. Is that >>>>> correct? >>>>> >>>>> This is my current set: >>>>> 5/5 pc_piix: Migrate to new NMI interface >>>>> 4/5 spapr: Add support for new NMI interface >>>>> 3/5 s390x: Migrate to new NMI interface >>>>> 2/5 s390x: Convert QEMUMachine to MachineClass >>>>> 1/5 cpus: Define callback for QEMU "nmi" command >>>> >>>> >>>> Alex, ping. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Uh, what exactly do you expect from me? :) >> >> No idea :) You could take patches to your tree. I do not understand what to >> do with this set now. Please help. Thanks. > > The way I understood your last email you wanted to rebase and repost > them at which point someone could pick them up :)
I wanted answer to "is that correct?" :) And I tried replaying the patchset on top of your ppc-next, it applied. But I'll repost to make sure that we have the same thing. -- Alexey
