From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757871Ab3HIMnt (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:43:49 -0400 Received: from e28smtp04.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.4]:57134 "EHLO e28smtp04.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756784Ab3HIMnq (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:43:46 -0400 Message-ID: <5204E57A.3000002@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 18:20:02 +0530 From: Raghavendra K T Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: Gleb Natapov , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , mingo@redhat.com, jeremy@goop.org, x86@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, peterz@infradead.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andi@firstfloor.org, attilio.rao@citrix.com, ouyang@cs.pitt.edu, gregkh@suse.de, agraf@suse.de, chegu_vinod@hp.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, avi.kivity@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, drjones@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V12 0/14] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks References: <20130806114020.20643.57235.sendpatchset@codeblue.in.ibm.com> <52016412.1020608@zytor.com> <5201B6FB.5080807@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5201D180.9080005@zytor.com> <5201ED01.7000803@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130808005012.GI2810@phenom.dumpdata.com> <20130808010251.GJ15901@redhat.com> <52040A05.5080107@zytor.com> <520423E9.80507@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <520423E9.80507@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13080912-5564-0000-0000-00000930C8BA Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/09/2013 04:34 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Okay, I figured it out. > > One of several problems with the formatting of this patchset is that it > has one- and two-digit patch numbers in the headers, which meant that my > scripts tried to apply patch 10 first. > My bad. I 'll send out in uniform digit form next time.