Amit Shah [mailto:amit.shah@redhat.com] writes:
On (Wed) 12 Dec 2012 [10:31:04], Rusty Russell wrote:

quoted

Amit Shah [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On (Tue) 11 Dec 2012 [09:39:41], Rusty Russell wrote:

quoted

Amit Shah [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On (Fri) 16 Nov 2012 [11:22:09], Rusty Russell wrote:

quoted

Amit Shah [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

From: Sjur Brændeland <redacted>

Remove buffers from the out-queue when a port is removed.

Rproc_serial

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

communicates with remote processors that may crash and leave

buffers in

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

the out-queue. The virtio serial ports may have buffers in the out-

queue

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

as well, e.g. for non-blocking ports and the host didn't consume

them

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

yet.

[Amit: Remove WARN_ON for generic ports case.]

Signed-off-by: Sjur Brændeland

[off-list ref]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Signed-off-by: Amit Shah <redacted>

I already have this in my pending queue; I've promoted it to my
virtio-next branch now.

Rusty, I still see this series in your pending queue, not in
virtio-next.  Did anything change in the meantime?

Hmm:

40e625ac50f40d87ddba93280d0a503425aa68e9?

I'm sorry, I meant the remoteproc code, not this patch.

Still waiting for v9, AFIACT?

Instead of sending all patches marked v9, just this patch was
re-spun.  I think you can just pick up patches 1 and 2 from v8 (they
have my acked-by), and patch 3 was an earlier version of this one,

Yes, that's right. V8 contained three patches, Amit did a respin of 3/3 that was applied.
(And I mistakenly thought 1/3 and 2/3 was applied as well). 

Anyway I'm resending a new patch-set with the two missing patches.
The patches are identical to the V8, but are rebased to the virtio-next branch.

Sorry for the confusion here.

Regards,
Sjur