From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:50:28 +1100 From: Paul Mackerras To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Paolo Bonzini , Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Add new state for transactional memory" Message-ID: <20140310105028.GA5934@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <1394102170-22126-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1394102170-22126-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, agraf@suse.de, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:06:09PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" > > This reverts commit 7b490411c37f7ab7965cbdfe5e3ec28eadb6db5b which cause > the below crash in the host. OK, I understand now what happened, which is this: when I sent out that patch, I inadvertently included a hunk of extra code as a result of not cleaning up a rebase properly. The next patch in the series removed the extraneous hunk, but Alex didn't apply the next patch. We can either do this revert, or apply a patch removing the extra hunk, but one or the other should go in for 3.14 since it's quite broken as it is (that is, HV-mode KVM on powerpc is broken). Paolo, do you have a preference about revert vs. fix? Are you happy to take what Aneesh sent (in which case please add my acked-by and perhaps edit the commentary to say how the problem arose), or do you want a freshly-prepared patch, and if so against which branch? Thanks, Paul.