From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: PV on HVM Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:47:11 -0700 Message-ID: <4BE870CF.5050004@goop.org> References: <> <1273501247-27267-1-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> <4BE86F4D.1060500@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BE86F4D.1060500@goop.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 05/10/2010 01:40 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 05/10/2010 07:20 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > >> Hi all, >> this is the updated version of the PV on HVM series: many bugs have been >> fixed and VIRQ_TIMER support has been added. >> In order to be able to use VIRQ_TIMER and to improve performances you >> need two other patches to Xen to implement the vector callback mechanism >> for event channel delivery and to export some time related hypercalls to >> HVM guests too. >> >> This series is based on a standard 2.6.32 tree, a git tree is also >> available here: >> >> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/linux-pvhvm.git >> >> branch name 2.6.32-pvhvm. >> >> > I'm confused. These patches don't seem to correspond with that branch. > Are these the same as the branch but rearranged, or something else? > I see, it looks like the condensed version of the branch. I really prefer you'd keep the patches incremental: its much easier to review the incremental changes rather than folding updates into the already-reviewed base patches. Folding down is a late-stage process for submission, and not something that should be done prematurely. J