From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BBEF2C00B9 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:51:48 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <531D9937.5010705@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:51:35 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Mackerras , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Add new state for transactional memory" References: <1394102170-22126-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140310105028.GA5934@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20140310105028.GA5934@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: , Il 10/03/2014 11:50, Paul Mackerras ha scritto: > 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? I prefer a fix. Paolo