From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH V12 0/14] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:04:09 -0700 Message-ID: <520423E9.80507@zytor.com> References: <20130806114020.20643.57235.sendpatchset@codeblue.in.ibm.com> <52016412.1020608@zytor.com> <5201B6FB.5080807@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5201D180.9080005@zytor.com> <5201ED01.7000803@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130808005012.GI2810@phenom.dumpdata.com> <20130808010251.GJ15901@redhat.com> <52040A05.5080107@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jeremy@goop.org, x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, drjones@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, andi@firstfloor.org, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Raghavendra K T , mingo@redhat.com, habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, riel@redhat.com, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , ouyang@cs.pitt.edu, avi.kivity@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, chegu_vinod@hp.com, gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com, attilio.rao@citrix.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52040A05.5080107@zytor.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 08/08/2013 02:13 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 08/07/2013 06:02 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 08:50:12PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:15:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: >>>> On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>>>>> Please let me know, if I should rebase again. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> tip:master is not a stable branch; it is more like linux-next. We need >>>>> to figure out which topic branches are dependencies for this set. >>>> >>>> Okay. I 'll start looking at the branches that would get affected. >>>> (Xen, kvm are obvious ones). >>>> Please do let me know the branches I might have to check for. >>> >>> >From the Xen standpoint anything past v3.11-rc4 would work. >>> >> For KVM as early as past v3.11-rc1 would be OK. >> > > I'm still completely confused as to the base of this patchset. The > first patch has the following hunk for arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h: > Okay, I figured it out. One of several problems with the formatting of this patchset is that it has one- and two-digit patch numbers in the headers, which meant that my scripts tried to apply patch 10 first. -hpa