From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zachary Amsden Subject: Re: paravirt patches in -mm Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:46:50 -0700 Message-ID: <451F483A.6000202@vmware.com> References: <20060930210129.6ea99bd1.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060930210129.6ea99bd1.akpm@osdl.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: "virtualization@lists.osdl.org" List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Andrew Morton wrote: > Guys, could you please confirm that these patches from -mm: > > paravirt-remove-read-hazard-from-cow.patch > paravirt-pte-clear-not-present.patch > paravirt-lazy-mmu-mode-hooks.patch > paravirt-combine-flush-accessed-dirty.patch > paravirt-kpte-flush.patch > paravirt-optimize-ptep-establish-for-pae.patch > paravirt-remove-set-pte-atomic.patch > paravirt-pae-compile-fix.patch > paravirt-update-pte-hook.patch > > are suitable for mainline inclusion? > = Yes, these are all originally by me, and they are suitable for = mainline. They are either nops in mainline or are actually enhancements = to mainline, simplifying or optimizing the pte accessors on i386 and = have zero impact (or improved) impact on code generation and = performance. The only regrettable fact is that I broke PAE somewhere in = the middle of the series (thus requiring paravirt-pae-compile-fix as a = separate patch, when I should have rolled the fix into the proper = patch). But if you take the whole batch, there is no problem. Zach