On 17.11.2020 19:13, Julien Grall wrote: > On 09/11/2020 16:38, Juergen Gross wrote: >> Juergen Gross (3): >> xen/events: access last_priority and last_vcpu_id together >> xen/evtchn: rework per event channel lock >> xen/evtchn: revert 52e1fc47abc3a0123 > > While looking at the list of commits, I noticed that the first patch > hasn't been committed. They were all acked/reviewed, so I am a bit > puzzled why this was omitted... > > I have nearly missed as I was expecting the 3 patches to be committed > together. May I suggest that in the future we reply to the cover letter > and mention which patches are (or not) committed? > > Regarding patch #1, I will commit it tomorrow unless there are strong > objections against.
Without a clear outline of what would break with the present logic, I had previously indicated I'm not convinced of the change. This isn't a strong objection, no, but I still wouldn't want to see my name associated with it in such a case. Furthermore I clearly view this as not a backporting candidate, while the other two are (as I did previously indicate). Hence the latter two patches wanted re-basing ahead of the first one anyway, to ease the backports. While I will accept there are different views possible here, I also don't think sending mail in such a case is a good use of resources. The information what was or was not committed is readily available. Personally I view such mails as at least very close to spam. Irrespective of the above I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused. Jan
