On Wed, 29 Oct 2025, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
On 10/29/25 15:28, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
+ Thomas
Hi BALATON,
I am unable to fetch it with b4 am, and I do not see it appear on lore
also, not sure if its due to the binary size.
harshpb:patches$ b4 am [email protected]
Looking up
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251028151923.10DBB5972E5%40zero.eik.bme.hu
Grabbing thread from
lore.kernel.org/all/20251028151923.10DBB5972E5%40zero.eik.bme.hu/t.mbox.gz
Server returned an error: 404
harshpb:patches$
I guess you may need to send a PULL SUBSYSTEM req like Thomas did for
slof:
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/[email protected]/
Hi Harsh,
You should be able to download mbox from
https://patchew.org/QEMU/[email protected]/
and git am that. This was tested by somebody else and worked.
Yes, git fetch from there seems to work, thanks.
If needed
I could try to split the binary into another patch or send you the patch
again. Maybe lore does not store large files?
Having only binary file update into its own separate patch may be better
as a best practice, so other patch gets non-binary changes for easy review.
Also, maintaining the date stamp may also be helpful in some cases.
Let me know if you think otherwise.
Which date stamp maintaining are you referring to? I can split the patch
in two later today or tomorrow if you want and send a v2 but not right
now. For that to compile and work after each patch it would need to add
the new binary in one patch then remove the old one after changing its
usage. Or maybe even 3 patches: first updating submodule, then adding
binary rebuilt from that then changing usage and removing old one. I think
this would make the series larger as git now seems to contain binary diff
between old and new versions but if these are in different patch it may
still add the removed binary as a binary patch. So this only works if the
old and new binary is the same name or renamed in one patch but then that
would break if the usage is not updated in the same patch. So maybe patch
one to update submodule, patch 2 to add binary with old name and patch 3
to rename the binary could work but does that worth the hassle and any
better than this single patch?
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
