From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH PV_OPS X86_64 00/17] Paravirt_ops for x86_64 Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:05:07 -0500 Message-ID: <1173359107.25848.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1173333704.25848.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070308064729.GZ10574@sequoia.sous-sol.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070308064729.GZ10574@sequoia.sous-sol.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Chris Wright Cc: virtualization@lists.osdl.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 22:47 -0800, Chris Wright wrote: > * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote: > > Well, it's still kind of crappy, but it's starting to work. So I spent > > today, pulling out patches related only to paravirt ops from our git > > repo, and separating them to be readable. Well, here they are. > = > Cool. I had split these up slightly differently, with core changes > coming first (like places where raw asm is still left behind), followed > by adding in the paravirt bits. I think it would be useful to get those > simple basic changes to the front of the queue, because they can > largely be merged right away w/out issue. I'll look through the lot > tomorrow. The way I split it, and what took me so long to split it, was that I wanted each patch to be able to compile. There was one two-way dependency, I think that was between patches 7 and 8. But the most part, each addition of a patch allowed for a successful compile. I didn't test running those though ;) I can work on splitting it better. After pushing out the lguest64 patches (coming soon). -- Steve