Re: Not really merged? Re: [merged] x86-paravirt-pte-updates-in-kunmap_atomic-need-to-be-synchronous-regardless-of-lazy_mmu-mode.patch removed from -mm tree

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:24:50 -0400
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:51:48PM -0700, akpm@google.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > The patch titled
> > >      Subject: x86/paravirt: PTE updates in k(un)map_atomic need to be synchronous, regardless of lazy_mmu mode
> > > has been removed from the -mm tree.  Its filename was
> > >      x86-paravirt-pte-updates-in-kunmap_atomic-need-to-be-synchronous-regardless-of-lazy_mmu-mode.patch
> > > 
> > > This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
> > 
> > Hey Andrew,
> > 
> > I am actually not seeing this in mainline? Was it accidently dropped out of your tree?
> 
> hm, well spotted.  I'm not sure what happened here - possibly the 
> patch was merged into an x86 tree (and hence linux-next) but later 
> got lost. Or possibly not, and I just screwed up.

No, a patch with the -i 'paravirt.*lazy' pattern never touched -tip, 
even temporarily.

Could it be that someone else (say the Xen guys) picked it up, it 
went into linux-next, you thought it's applied - but then they 
dropped it?

Do we have a full log of all linux-next patches?

> Either way, it's a pretty important patch - we marked it for 
> -stable backporting.

Agreed.

But IMO it's at least as important to figure out what went wrong. I 
somehow doubt it that you spuriously dropped it - that someone else 
messes up has a far higher likelihood.

> > If that is the case I can convience you to put it back in or can 
> > I drive it to Linus with your Ack-ed by?
> 
> I resurrected my copy and shall send it along to the x86 guys soon.

Thanks,

	Ingo