Re: [PATCH 0/5] paravirt clock source patches, #4

Re: [PATCH 0/5] paravirt clock source patches, #4

[Gerd Hoffmann]

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> paravirt clock source patches, next round.
>>
>> There is now a pvclock-abi.h file with the structs and some longish
>> comments in it and everybody is switched over to use the stuff in
>> there.
> 
> This all looks pretty good.  How do you want this to get into the kernel?

[ note: fixed up kvm list address: s/-owner// ]

Good question.  The kvm patches have dependencies on not-yet merged
bits, so they have to go through the kvm queue.  The first two can also
go through Ingos x86 tree I guess.

cheers,
  Gerd

-- 
http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/xenner/

Re: [PATCH 0/5] paravirt clock source patches, #4

[Avi Kivity]

Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>   
>> Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>>     
>>> paravirt clock source patches, next round.
>>>
>>> There is now a pvclock-abi.h file with the structs and some longish
>>> comments in it and everybody is switched over to use the stuff in
>>> there.
>>>       
>> This all looks pretty good.  How do you want this to get into the kernel?
>>     
>
> [ note: fixed up kvm list address: s/-owner// ]
>
> Good question.  The kvm patches have dependencies on not-yet merged
> bits, so they have to go through the kvm queue.  The first two can also
> go through Ingos x86 tree I guess.
>
>   

Alternativey, if Ingo acks, I'll send all five through kvm.git.

Note the kvm specific patches need to be backported as we want them for 
2.6.26.  I can do that.

(Ingo: said patches are in 
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/18149)

-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

Re: [PATCH 0/5] paravirt clock source patches, #4

[Avi Kivity]

Avi Kivity wrote:     
>>> This all looks pretty good.  How do you want this to get into the 
>>> kernel?
>>>     
>>
>> [ note: fixed up kvm list address: s/-owner// ]
>>
>> Good question.  The kvm patches have dependencies on not-yet merged
>> bits, so they have to go through the kvm queue.  The first two can also
>> go through Ingos x86 tree I guess.
>>
>>   
>
> Alternativey, if Ingo acks, I'll send all five through kvm.git.
>
> Note the kvm specific patches need to be backported as we want them 
> for 2.6.26.  I can do that.
>
> (Ingo: said patches are in 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/18149)
>

What's happening with this?  Is it going through x86.git or what?

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.