From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758769Ab0JVSj2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:39:28 -0400 Received: from claw.goop.org ([74.207.240.146]:51228 "EHLO claw.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757263Ab0JVSjZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:39:25 -0400 Message-ID: <4CC1DA58.8000606@goop.org> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:39:20 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100921 Fedora/3.1.4-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Stephen Rothwell , Xen Devel , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gianluca Guida , Yinghai Lu , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen tree with the tip tree References: <20101022140335.c4a3a48f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20101022080129.GA8474@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20101022080129.GA8474@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/22/2010 01:01 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the xen tree got a conflict in >> arch/x86/mm/init_32.c between commit >> 1d931264af0f10649b35afa8fbd2e169da51ac08 ("x86-32, memblock: Make >> add_highpages honor early reserved ranges") from the tip tree and commit >> 07147a06ac3b1b028124ea00ba44e69eb8ea7685 ("x86/32: honor reservations of >> high memory") from the xen tree. > Jeremy, > > Commit 07147a06ac is all over the x86 tree: > > arch/x86/mm/init_32.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > include/linux/early_res.h | 3 +++ > kernel/early_res.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > ... but there's no x86 person who acked it or was Cc:-ed to this commit AFAICS. It > was not even posted to lkml! Nor does the commit title suggest that it affects core > kernel code as well. > > Also, the AuthorDate field is a total lie: > > commit 07147a06ac3b1b028124ea00ba44e69eb8ea7685 > Author: Gianluca Guida > AuthorDate: Sun Aug 2 01:25:48 2009 +0100 > Commit: Jeremy Fitzhardinge > CommitDate: Mon Oct 4 14:22:11 2010 -0700 > > x86/32: honor reservations of high memory > > This commit was written on Aug 2 2009, really? kernel/early_res.c, which is modified > by half of this commit, was _CREATED_ in February 2010 ... Most of the code in early_res.c was simply moved from arch/x86/.../e820.c, so the patch chunks were applied to the new file when the code was moved. > I realize that some original patch, much different from this one, was probably > written in 2009, and that via a series of undocumented rebases and modifications to > the patch you achieved this state. The modified code was almost entirely unchanged over that period, so the datestamp and original authorship of the patch was basically correct. However... > Crap like that is just _NOT_ acceptable, and you know that perfectly well - if you > do this to arch/x86/ i'll be forced to ask for the Xen tree to be removed from > linux-next and be done via the x86 tree again. Hey, hey, hold your horses. This is a wildly obsolete patch that we were discussing a few weeks ago, but Yinghai did a proper alternative for the memblock universe. It was never in linux-next, and never intended to be. I'm not sure why it has appeared in linux-next now; it isn't in my branch. I wonder if it appeared in another Xen-related branch. Let me investigate. J