Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] XSA-343 followup patches

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 17.11.2020 19:13, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 09/11/2020 16:38, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Juergen Gross (3):
>>    xen/events: access last_priority and last_vcpu_id together
>>    xen/evtchn: rework per event channel lock
>>    xen/evtchn: revert 52e1fc47abc3a0123
> 
> While looking at the list of commits, I noticed that the first patch 
> hasn't been committed. They were all acked/reviewed, so I am a bit 
> puzzled why this was omitted...
> 
> I have nearly missed as I was expecting the 3 patches to be committed 
> together. May I suggest that in the future we reply to the cover letter 
> and mention which patches are (or not) committed?
> 
> Regarding patch #1, I will commit it tomorrow unless there are strong 
> objections against.

Without a clear outline of what would break with the present logic,
I had previously indicated I'm not convinced of the change. This
isn't a strong objection, no, but I still wouldn't want to see my
name associated with it in such a case. Furthermore I clearly view
this as not a backporting candidate, while the other two are (as I
did previously indicate). Hence the latter two patches wanted
re-basing ahead of the first one anyway, to ease the backports.

While I will accept there are different views possible here, I also
don't think sending mail in such a case is a good use of resources.
The information what was or was not committed is readily available.
Personally I view such mails as at least very close to spam.

Irrespective of the above I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Jan