From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Jackson Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxc: use correct macro when unmapping memory after save operation Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 17:18:50 +0100 Message-ID: <19931.55914.643836.815034@mariner.uk.xensource.com> References: <4DDBBFF1.4050905@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: Jim Fehlig , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxc: use correct macro when unmapping memory after save operation"): > On 24/05/2011 15:25, "Jim Fehlig" wrote: > > BTW, thanks for the commit message note about "backporting to relevant > > earlier trees". I was going to ask that this be applied to > > 4.1-testing. Should such a statement be included for fixes that apply > > to multiple trees? Is it helpful for scanning potential backports in > > -unstable? > > Worth pointing out that at the moment only I seem to be backporting to the > stable trees, and I only do that for tools patches that I am explicitly > requested to do by a toolstack maintainer. A comment in a changeset comment > is fine if it is a reminder for Ian, but it is useless in terms of getting > me to apply it to 4.1-testing (for example). Indeed. It is a reminder for me. Ian.