From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: Wait queue support for 4.3 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:47:11 +0100 Message-ID: <507C13DF.4090707@eu.citrix.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Keir Fraser Cc: Olaf Hering , Ian Campbell , Andres Lagar-Cavilla , "Tim (Xen.org)" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 12/10/12 20:34, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 12/10/2012 19:53, "Andres Lagar-Cavilla" wrote: > >>> I don't see any dependency. And Tim has already proposed patches for >>> use-case 2, in fact, as you noted. So, shouldn't they simply be polished up >>> and applied as soon as possible? Basically, for mm type things, Tim is your >>> man, either as author or reviewer. >> Ok. Wanted to ascertain where we stand on things. >> >> Tim's patches crash guests because there are all sorts of spinlocks being >> held. That's the gist of the mm work that needs to be done. And a separate >> discussion. > Yes, that's a *mm* can of worms. :) Tim is the first port of call, and > working out who actually does the work, and what work that is, will be the > the ensuing discussion. So does it make sense to track this on the 4.3 feature list (obviously with "owner: ?" until that's sorted out)? Andres, would the summary below be accurate enough? * Waitqueues for hypervisor accesses to shared frames which fail with -ENOMEM owner: ? status: First draft posted back in February, much more work to do. -George