On 09/04/2013 01:34 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 3 September 2013 16:28, Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> wrote: >> On 09/03/2013 08:42 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> This shouldn't be routed through trivial in general as things broke too >>> often in this area. >> >> >> Sorry for my ignorance, but this is The Kernel, it is already there, broken >> or not, even if it is broken, qemu cannot stay isolated, no? >> This is a mechanical change, no more. > > The classic way for things to break is that a header > update accidentally reverts something (because a > previous update was from kvm-next and this one is > from mainline, for example). Accidental updates against > a kernel which is neither kvm-next nor mainline are > the other common "broken" version of a header update > patch.
I can understand that but this update is a mainline kernel update and it is not an accidental one but very specific :-/ -- Alexey
