Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

* Glauber de Oliveira Costa [off-list ref] wrote:

On Jan 18, 2008 8:02 PM, Ingo Molnar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

* Zachary Amsden [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y.
Which means you did not even build-test it on 32-bit, let alone boot
test it...

Why are we rushing so much to do 64-bit paravirt that we are breaking
working configurations?  If the developement is going to be this
chaotic, it should be done and tested out of tree until it can
stabilize.

what you see is a open feedback cycle conducted on lkml. People send
patches for arch/x86, and we tell them if it breaks something. The bug
was found before i pushed out the x86.git devel tree (and the fix is
below - but this shouldnt matter to you because the bug never hit a
public x86.git tree).

        Ingo

Other than this, it seems to build and boot fine.

Do you want me to resend ?

no, this was the only small problem i found, your series looks good to 
me and is included in latest x86.git.

	Ingo