Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230403095200.1391782-1-korantwork@gmail.com> <168063175075.174995.217166777153935864.b4-ty@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <168063175075.174995.217166777153935864.b4-ty@google.com>
From:   Xinghui Li <korantwork@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 10:21:20 +0800
Message-ID: <CAEm4hYV-M1sbboOon_O=eRsk6LEgwog+oUKBpdnAkchs=KMWEw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH REBASED] KVM: x86: SVM: Fix one redefine issue about VMCB_AVIC_APIC_BAR_MASK
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        mlevitsk@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, Xinghui Li <korantli@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:44=E2=80=AFAM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.c=
om> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 17:52:00 +0800, korantwork@gmail.com wrote:
> > VMCB_AVIC_APIC_BAR_MASK is defined twice with the same value in svm.h,
> > which is meaningless. Delete the duplicate one.
>
> Applied to kvm-x86 svm, thanks!
>
> In the future, please don't use "PATCH REBASED".  If you're sending a new
> version of a patch that's been rebased, then the revision number needs to=
 be
> bumped.  The fact that the only change is that the patch was rebased isn'=
t
> relevant as far as versioning is concerned, it's still a new version.  Th=
e
> cover letter and/or ignored part of the patch is where the delta between
> versions should be captured.
>
> And in this case, there really was no need to send a new version, the ori=
ginal
> patch still applies cleanly.  I suspect that the REBASED version was sent=
 as a
> form of a ping, which again is not the right way to ping a patch/series. =
 If you
> want to ping, please reply to the original patch.  Unnecessarily sending =
new
> versions means more patches to sort through, i.e. makes maintainers lives=
 harder,
> not easier.
>
Firstly, I'm so so SORRY to burden you in this way.
I found the last patch can't be am directly, so I send a new patch
with the last rebased code.
I used to believe that this would alleviate your burden, but
unfortunately, it had the opposite effect.
Again, sorry for my wrong operation.

Thanks~