From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754131Ab1J1HKX (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:10:23 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:42113 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751163Ab1J1HKW (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:10:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:08:39 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, hpa@zytor.com, jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com, mingo@redhat.com, stable@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: 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 Message-ID: <20111028070838.GG12995@elte.hu> References: <201110141951.p9EJpn3A006989@hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com> <20111025182450.GA9843@phenom.dumpdata.com> <20111027155329.0adc1358.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111027155329.0adc1358.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:24:50 -0400 > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 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