From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753599Ab3HFCoQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 22:44:16 -0400 Received: from e28smtp05.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.5]:41363 "EHLO e28smtp05.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753149Ab3HFCoO (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 22:44:14 -0400 Message-ID: <52006474.6010109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:20:28 +0530 From: Raghavendra K T Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: gleb@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com, jeremy@goop.org, x86@kernel.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, peterz@infradead.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andi@firstfloor.org, attilio.rao@citrix.com, ouyang@cs.pitt.edu, gregkh@suse.de, agraf@suse.de, chegu_vinod@hp.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, avi.kivity@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, drjones@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V11 0/18] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks References: <20130722061631.24737.75508.sendpatchset@codeblue> <52002C49.1060201@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <52002C49.1060201@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13080602-8256-0000-0000-000008AAD74D Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/06/2013 04:20 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > So, having read through the entire thread I *think* this is what the > status of this patchset is: > > 1. Patches 1-17 are noncontroversial, Raghavendra is going to send an > update split into two patchsets; Yes. Only one patch would be common to both host and guest which will be sent as a separate patch. I 'll rebase first patchset to -next and second patchset to kvm tree as needed. > 2. There are at least two versions of patch 15; I think the "PATCH > RESEND RFC" is the right one. True. > 3. Patch 18 is controversial but there are performance numbers; these > should be integrated in the patch description. Current plan is to drop for patch 18 for now. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Raghavendra K T Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V11 0/18] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:20:28 +0530 Message-ID: <52006474.6010109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20130722061631.24737.75508.sendpatchset@codeblue> <52002C49.1060201@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jeremy@goop.org, gregkh@suse.de, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, drjones@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, andi@firstfloor.org, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, x86@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, riel@redhat.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, ouyang@cs.pitt.edu, avi.kivity@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, chegu_vinod@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com, attilio.rao@citrix.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52002C49.1060201@zytor.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 08/06/2013 04:20 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > So, having read through the entire thread I *think* this is what the > status of this patchset is: > > 1. Patches 1-17 are noncontroversial, Raghavendra is going to send an > update split into two patchsets; Yes. Only one patch would be common to both host and guest which will be sent as a separate patch. I 'll rebase first patchset to -next and second patchset to kvm tree as needed. > 2. There are at least two versions of patch 15; I think the "PATCH > RESEND RFC" is the right one. True. > 3. Patch 18 is controversial but there are performance numbers; these > should be integrated in the patch description. Current plan is to drop for patch 18 for now.