Re: [PULL 0/5] ppc patch queue 2012-05-16

[Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>]

On 05/16/2012 03:23 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/16/2012 04:05 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Hi Avi,
>>
>> There are a few bugs in 3.4 that really should be fixed before people can
>> be all happy and fuzzy about KVM on PowerPC. These fixes are:
>>
>>    * fix POWER7 bare metal with PR=y
>>    * fix deadlock on HV=y book3s_64 mode in low memory cases
>>    * fix invalid MMU scope of PR=y mode on book3s_64, possibly
>>      leading to memory corruption
>>
>> This request and the patches are based on top of Linus's master branch. Please
>> either send these to Linus to get them into 3.4.0 or to linux-stable if it's too
>> late already.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> The following changes since commit 568b44559d7ca269d367e694c74eb4436e7e3ccf:
>>    Srivatsa S. Bhat (1):
>>          mn10300/CPU hotplug: Add missing call to notify_cpu_starting()
>>
>> are available in the git repository at:
>>
>>    git://github.com/agraf/linux-2.6.git for-upstream-3.4
>>
>> Alexander Graf (3):
>>        KVM: PPC: Book3S: PR: Handle EMUL_ASSIST
>>        KVM: PPC: Fix PR KVM on POWER7 bare metal
>>
> This one is already in 'next', which means it's queued for 3.5.  While
> it won't bring about the end of the universe, please try to avoid this
> in the future by selecting the right branch to push into in advance
> (that's one of the consequences of the new workflow).

Hm. I figured that there's a pretty high chance that the patches won't 
make it for 3.4.0, so they'd have to go into 3.4-stable, which then 
again means it's a lot easier to see which ones are still outstanding 
there. I still maintain a -next queue in parallel where patches destined 
for 3.5 go into.

Which workflow would you prefer if not the one above?


Alex