From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] kvm/ppc: fixes for 3.10 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:52:49 -0500 Message-ID: <1370893969.18413.14@snotra> References: <20130609080921.GF4725@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: Alexander Graf , Paolo Bonzini , Mihai Caraman , , To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: Received: from co1ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.180.186]:32408 "EHLO co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751997Ab3FJTwz convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:52:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130609080921.GF4725@redhat.com> (from gleb@redhat.com on Sun Jun 9 03:09:21 2013) Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/09/2013 03:09:21 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 07:16:28PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > Most of these have been posted before, but I grouped them together > as > > there are some contextual dependencies between them. > > > > Gleb/Paolo: As Alex doesn't appear to be back yet, can you apply > these > > if there's no objection over the next few days? > > > Well we are at -rc5 now and Linus specifically said that if he sees > one > more "cleanup" he will be less then happy [1]. Looks like this patch > series does have some cleanups that can be postponed to 3.11. > Patches 1-4,7 looks like 3.10 material to me. 5 and 6 a cleanups that > can > wait for 3.11. Not sure about 8, if 8 fixes serious problem please > specify it in the commit message. Agreed. 8 did fix a BUG_ON before patch 7 came along, but now it looks non-critical. 5 only affects IRQ tracing, and it's not a regression, so also probably not critical. I'll resend patch 7 so that it applies without needing patch 5. 6 is mainly doing things that we originally thought were a fix to lazy ee handling, until we noticed code elsewhere handling it in a hackier way. There's still a bugfix in that previously kvm_guest_exit() was called in the wrong place which could occasionally mess up virtual time accounting, but that's also not a regression and not critical. -Scott