From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 13:34:42 +0000 Subject: Re: [PULL 0/5] ppc patch queue 2012-05-16 Message-Id: <4FB3ACF2.7000107@redhat.com> List-Id: References: <1337173519-6780-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <4FB3AA52.7090409@redhat.com> <4FB3AB64.3060609@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <4FB3AB64.3060609@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Alexander Graf Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com On 05/16/2012 04:28 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > 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? > For -rc/-stable patches, avoid queueing. If you have a patch, post it to the maintainers ASAP. It then becomes our problem (and a smaller problem too, since the less delays there are, the bigger the chances of making the intended release). A few days are fine of course. For mainstream patches, queuing is fine, but don't overdo it please. I enjoy pulling from you and am quite willing to pull several times per cycle. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function