* Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.04.18 at 09:32, wrote:
>
> > * Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> >> >>> On 11.04.18 at 13:53, wrote:
> >> > * Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Additionally, x86 maintainers: is there a particular reason this (or
> >> >> any functionally equivalent patch) isn't ups
>>> On 12.04.18 at 09:32, wrote:
> * Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> >>> On 11.04.18 at 13:53, wrote:
>> > * Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >
>> >> Additionally, x86 maintainers: is there a particular reason this (or
>> >> any functionally equivalent patch) isn't upstream yet? As indicated
>> >> before, I ha
* Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 11.04.18 at 13:53, wrote:
> > * Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> >> Additionally, x86 maintainers: is there a particular reason this (or
> >> any functionally equivalent patch) isn't upstream yet? As indicated
> >> before, I had not been able to find any discussion, and
>>> On 11.04.18 at 13:53, wrote:
> * Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> Additionally, x86 maintainers: is there a particular reason this (or
>> any functionally equivalent patch) isn't upstream yet? As indicated
>> before, I had not been able to find any discussion, and hence I
>> see no reason why this is
* Jan Beulich wrote:
> Additionally, x86 maintainers: is there a particular reason this (or
> any functionally equivalent patch) isn't upstream yet? As indicated
> before, I had not been able to find any discussion, and hence I
> see no reason why this is a patch we effectively carry privately i
5 matches
Mail list logo