Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] X86/XEN: Merge x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_start and x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_done setup functions and document its semantic

[Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@citrix.com>]

On 22/08/12 15:19, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>    
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:22:03PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>      
>>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>>        
>>>> Differences with v1:
>>>> - The patch serie is re-arranged in a way that it helps reviews, following
>>>>    a plan by Thomas Gleixner
>>>> - The PVOPS nomenclature is not used as it is not correct
>>>> - The front-end message is adjusted with feedback by Thomas Gleixner,
>>>>    Stefano Stabellini and Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
>>>>          
>>> This is much simpler to read and review. Just have a look at the
>>> diffstats of the two series:
>>>
>>>   6 files changed,  9 insertions(+),  8 deletions(-)
>>>   6 files changed, 11 insertions(+),  9 deletions(-)
>>>   5 files changed, 50 insertions(+),  2 deletions(-)
>>>   6 files changed,  2 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
>>>   1 files changed,  5 insertions(+),  0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> versus
>>>
>>>   6 files changed, 10 insertions(+),  9 deletions(-)
>>>   6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>   5 files changed,  3 insertions(+),  3 deletions(-)
>>>   6 files changed,  4 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>   1 files changed,  5 insertions(+),  0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> The overall result is basically the same, but it's way simpler to look
>>> at obvious and well done patches than checking whether a subtle copy
>>> and paste bug happened in 3/5 of the first version. Copy and paste is
>>> the #1 cause for subtle bugs. :)
>>>
>>> I'm waiting for the ack of Xen folks before taking it into tip.
>>>        
>> I've some extra patches that modify the new "paginig_init" in the Xen
>> code that I am going to propose for v3.7 - so will have some merge
>> conflicts. Let me figure that out and also run this set of patches
>> (and also the previous one .. which I think you didn't have a
>> chance to look since you were on vacation?) on an overnight
>>      
> Which previous one ?
>    

This one:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/21/369

but I would like to repost the patch serie skipping the referral to 
PVOPS in the commit logs, I will do so right now, so please wait for 
another patch serie.

Attilio