From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37899) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h0nnk-0004dR-A5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:38:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h0nnj-0004FC-JC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:38:40 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-x333.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::333]:44184) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h0nnj-0004DF-DO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:38:39 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-x333.google.com with SMTP id g1so4201241otj.11 for ; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 05:38:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190221173326.31874-1-mst@redhat.com> <20190225101718-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: From: Peter Maydell Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:38:26 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL v2 resend 00/26] pci, pc, virtio: fixes, cleanups, tests List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , QEMU Developers On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 10:56, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 25/02/19 16:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > The following changes since commit fc3dbb90f2eb069801bfb4cfe9cbc83cf9c5f4a9: > > > > Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/jnsnow/tags/bitmaps-pull-request' into staging (2019-02-21 13:09:33 +0000) > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/mst/qemu.git tags/for_upstream > > > > for you to fetch changes up to 88c869198aa630e0477d653d0abf3f42c7c44d1f > > > > pci: Sanity test minimum downstream LNKSTA (2019-02-21 12:28:41 -0500) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Note: this is same as a fixup I sent earlier, this is just a resend to > > make sure it's not missed. This should also help me figure out whether > > this is a good format to use. > > You should have sent it as a new toplevel message, too, otherwise Peter > doesn't see it. No, my filter doesn't care about top level messages or not (though sending as a new top level message is a good idea). I'm not sure why this slipped through the net. In any case, now applied, thanks. Please update the changelog for any user-visible changes. -- PMM