Hi Jeremy,

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:53:39 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [off-list ref] wrote:

On 09/13/2011 08:07 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:54:41 +1000 Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:12:33 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 08/25/2011 04:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

quoted

quoted

Stephen: the x86/spinlocks branch in the -tip tree is obsolete and
should be dropped.

That's a bit tricky as I get a rolled up tip tree.  The best I could do
is revert the commit that merges the x86/spinlocks branch into
auto-latest ...  I'll do that for today (unless something happens to the
tip tree in the next hour).

OK, let me bother Ingo about it.

For today, I have done "git revert -m 1 6f8fa39c81f1" after merging the
tip tree.

I am still doing this in each linux-next, and it doesn't appear to have
been fixed up the the tree on tesla.tglx.de, yet, I think.

We'll take it out. 

Actually, the tip x86/spinlocks was the most up-to-date version of those
patches (since hpa had rebased them to a more recent version of mainline).

But never mind.  Stephen, could you use

    git://github.com/jsgf/linux-xen.git upstream/xen

for linux-next instead of the kernel.org xen.git, and I've re-added the
up-to-date spinlock changes there.

OK, I have switched to this from today.

My understanding is this:  I do *not* need to revert the spinlock changes
from tip anymore, correct?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/