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

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

> > 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.
> 
> My drop was legitimate. 
> 
> Here's the commit from the Oct 14 linux-next:
> 
> 
> commit ab67482036cee590753dd42b7f66aada97e6dcde
> Author:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> AuthorDate: Fri Sep 23 17:02:29 2011 -0400
> Commit:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> CommitDate: Mon Sep 26 09:12:37 2011 -0400
.. snip..
> 
> I'm not sure what to make of that.  The signoffs imply that Konrad is
> running his own git tree, but I don't think he is.  Or someone (Jeremy
> or Rusty I think) merged it but didn't add a signoff.

Hey Andrew,

I am running my own tree (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/konrad/xen.git)

> Note that the patch was merged using its old name "x86/paravirt:
> Partially revert "remove lazy mode in interrupts"".  The patch got
> renamed to "x86/paravirt: PTE updates in k(un)map_atomic need to be
> synchronous, regardless of lazy_mmu mode" and perhaps this prompted
> someone to drop the old-named patch then lose the new-named one.

I am at loss as why I had that patch in my tree. I *might* have merged
in my #linux-next to compile/build/run-time test and then pushed that
tree. But I can't recall exactly why I would have done that (the push).

The fault is with me and I am sorry for making you (and Ingo) spend the
whole night digging through linux-next git history to figure this out.