Re: [PATCH REBASED] KVM: x86: SVM: Fix one redefine issue about VMCB_AVIC_APIC_BAR_MASK

[Xinghui Li]

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:44 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 17:52:00 +0800, korantwork@xxxxxxxxx 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.  The
> 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 original
> 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~