From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> Date: 2013-08-06 21:07:03
On 08/06/2013 04:40 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
implementation for both Xen and KVM.
The current set of patches are for Xen/x86 spinlock/KVM guest side, to be included
against -tip.
What is the baseline for this patchset? I tried to apply it on top of
3.11-rc4 and I got nontrivial conflicts.
-hpa
From: Raghavendra K T <hidden> Date: 2013-08-07 06:39:10
On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
quoted
Please let me know, if I should rebase again.
tip:master is not a stable branch; it is more like linux-next. We need
to figure out which topic branches are dependencies for this set.
Okay. I 'll start looking at the branches that would get affected.
(Xen, kvm are obvious ones).
Please do let me know the branches I might have to check for.
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <hidden> Date: 2013-08-08 00:52:17
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:15:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
quoted
quoted
Please let me know, if I should rebase again.
tip:master is not a stable branch; it is more like linux-next. We need
to figure out which topic branches are dependencies for this set.
Okay. I 'll start looking at the branches that would get affected.
(Xen, kvm are obvious ones).
Please do let me know the branches I might have to check for.
From the Xen standpoint anything past v3.11-rc4 would work.
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 08:50:12PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:15:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
quoted
On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
quoted
quoted
Please let me know, if I should rebase again.
tip:master is not a stable branch; it is more like linux-next. We need
to figure out which topic branches are dependencies for this set.
Okay. I 'll start looking at the branches that would get affected.
(Xen, kvm are obvious ones).
Please do let me know the branches I might have to check for.
quoted
From the Xen standpoint anything past v3.11-rc4 would work.
For KVM as early as past v3.11-rc1 would be OK.
--
Gleb.
From: Raghavendra K T <hidden> Date: 2013-08-08 02:53:07
On 08/07/2013 12:15 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
quoted
tip:master is not a stable branch; it is more like linux-next. We need
to figure out which topic branches are dependencies for this set.
Okay. I 'll start looking at the branches that would get affected.
(Xen, kvm are obvious ones).
Please do let me know the branches I might have to check for.
On Linus tree,
I am seeing patch getting applied to arch/x86/Kconfig at some offset
Hunk #1 succeeded at 632 (offset -31 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 657 (offset -31 lines).
since patches are based on -rc4, Xen, kvm should not have problem
as pointed by Gleb, Konrad.
I did not see change in tip's jumplabel/core-spinlock tree that would
affect it.
Peter, could you please point me to the conflict, so that I can help
there which saves time and trouble to maintainers.
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> Date: 2013-08-08 21:21:54
On 08/07/2013 06:02 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 08:50:12PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:15:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
quoted
On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
quoted
quoted
Please let me know, if I should rebase again.
tip:master is not a stable branch; it is more like linux-next. We need
to figure out which topic branches are dependencies for this set.
Okay. I 'll start looking at the branches that would get affected.
(Xen, kvm are obvious ones).
Please do let me know the branches I might have to check for.
quoted
From the Xen standpoint anything past v3.11-rc4 would work.
For KVM as early as past v3.11-rc1 would be OK.
I'm still completely confused as to the base of this patchset. The
first patch has the following hunk for arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h:
*lock,
+static __always_inline void __ticket_unlock_kick(struct arch_spinlock
*lock,
__ticket_t ticket)
{
PVOP_VCALL2(pv_lock_ops.unlock_kick, lock, ticket);
However, there is no ticket_unlock_kick in paravirt.h in either
tip:master nor in linus...
-hpa
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> Date: 2013-08-08 23:09:42
On 08/08/2013 02:13 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 08/07/2013 06:02 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 08:50:12PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:15:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
quoted
On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
quoted
quoted
Please let me know, if I should rebase again.
tip:master is not a stable branch; it is more like linux-next. We need
to figure out which topic branches are dependencies for this set.
Okay. I 'll start looking at the branches that would get affected.
(Xen, kvm are obvious ones).
Please do let me know the branches I might have to check for.
quoted
From the Xen standpoint anything past v3.11-rc4 would work.
For KVM as early as past v3.11-rc1 would be OK.
I'm still completely confused as to the base of this patchset. The
first patch has the following hunk for arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h:
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.
-hpa
From: Raghavendra K T <hidden> Date: 2013-08-09 12:50:02
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.