On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:35:49 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:44:33PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 06:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
> > no-re...@patchew.org wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Your series failed automatic build test. Please find the testing commands
> > > and
> > > their output below. If you have docker installed, you can probably
> > > reproduce it
> > > locally.
> > >
> > Heh... of course patchew doesn't know about Stefan's series. :)
> > Is there an appropriate way to avoid complaints when sending a patchset that
> > isn't based on QEMU master ?
> It's a good idea to be explicit which tree does the patchset
> target, and on top of which patches it is applied.
I thought that referring to the current patchset to eradicate exit() from the
virtio code was enough. But I agree it isn't that explicit.
> qemu master is kind of the default, but even then it's
> a good idea to tell everyone which hash it was based on -
> imagine someone trying to use your patchset several years from now.
I understand. I'll try to remember that next time. In the case of a
patchset which isn't committed yet, I like the suggestion to put
the Message-Id you made in another mail.