From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756560Ab2HVOT5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:19:57 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:47095 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754438Ab2HVOTz (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:19:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:19:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk cc: Attilio Rao , Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] X86/XEN: Merge x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_start and x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_done setup functions and document its semantic In-Reply-To: <20120822135753.GA30964@phenom.dumpdata.com> Message-ID: References: <1345580561-8506-1-git-send-email-attilio.rao@citrix.com> <20120822135753.GA30964@phenom.dumpdata.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:22:03PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Attilio Rao wrote: > > > Differences with v1: > > > - The patch serie is re-arranged in a way that it helps reviews, following > > > a plan by Thomas Gleixner > > > - The PVOPS nomenclature is not used as it is not correct > > > - The front-end message is adjusted with feedback by Thomas Gleixner, > > > Stefano Stabellini and Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > > > > This is much simpler to read and review. Just have a look at the > > diffstats of the two series: > > > > 6 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > 6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > 6 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) > > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > versus > > > > 6 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > 6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > 5 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > 6 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > The overall result is basically the same, but it's way simpler to look > > at obvious and well done patches than checking whether a subtle copy > > and paste bug happened in 3/5 of the first version. Copy and paste is > > the #1 cause for subtle bugs. :) > > > > I'm waiting for the ack of Xen folks before taking it into tip. > > I've some extra patches that modify the new "paginig_init" in the Xen > code that I am going to propose for v3.7 - so will have some merge > conflicts. Let me figure that out and also run this set of patches > (and also the previous one .. which I think you didn't have a > chance to look since you were on vacation?) on an overnight Which previous one ? > test to make sure there are no fallout. > > With the merge issues that are going to prop up (x86 tip tree > and my tree in linux-next) should I just take these patches > in my tree with your Ack? Or should I just ingest your tiptree > in my tree and that way solve the merge issue? What's your > preference! Having it in tip in an extra branch which you pull into your tree. That's the easiest one. Thanks, tglx