Re: Backport requests for 4.1-testing.hg

[Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>]

On 19/03/2012 14:23, "Andres Lagar-Cavilla" <andres@lagarcavilla.org> wrote:

> Keir,
> 
> Here is a patch series I would like to have included into the
> xen-4.1-testing.hg tree. These are all hypervisor changes. Roughly:
> - some improvements to spinlock and bariers
> - Jan's work on splitting up vcpu and domain structs
> - some mm.c error handling fixes from you and Jan
> - refactoring of hvm control register handling (Andre Przywara)
> - refactoring of IO emulation (Christoph Egger)
> - improvements to RCU and preempt.h
> - GNTTABOP_swap (Wei Lui, Paul Durrant)
> - small fixes here and there
> - your fixes to wait queues

We're not backporting major functionality into 4.1 at this point. These
patches add up to way too much churn in a well-established stable branch.

 -- Keir

> The patch series follows. I've commented '# Mod' next to the ones that
> don't apply cleanly to tip (i.e. 23267:14416d8215d4). The others just move
> cleanly from xen-unstable.hg. For those that don't apply cleanly, I've
> attached the fixed version. It builds all the way (x86_32 and x86_64) and
> so far so good on my testing.
> 
> 22994:299ed79acecf # Mod
> 22998:e9fab50d7b61
> 22999:82b5f8d12903
> 23000:d428fa67abaa
> 23046:8074dff66e97
> 23074:c80e0fb4fe93 # Mod
> 23099:612171ff82ea
> 23100:ef8dd40422c8
> 23108:45eeeb6d0481
> 23104:0bc1c4746c89
> 23107:9549c04a8384
> 23141:c2d7a9fd7364
> 23142:f5e8d152a565 # Mod
> 23143:2f7f24fe5924
> 23144:37c4f7d492a4
> 23145:4fe0442aa5b7
> 23225:3f00c5faa12a
> 23233:1276926e3795
> 23301:44bfebf40b2b
> 23572:4e9562c1ce4e # Mod
> 23676:80c9db90bba9
> 23958:e2f6af2820f1
> 23996:51a0c81a4030 # Mod
> 24135:9af6829a9273
> 24147:a5f1d3b1612b
> 24548:d115844ebfbb
> # Wait queues
> 24104:4daa4ad90f12
> 24171:fe80909663c1 # Mod
> 24178:1f2a06dbbb69 # Mod
> 24195:9b65336f688f
> 24196:de4fe05fe887
> 24197:ca92c4a8b31f # Mod
> 24231:2a81ce2b2b93
> 24232:95d4e2e0bed3
> 
> (I couldn't think of a better way to deal with the modified patches than
> straight attachment, but let me know if there is a better known method).
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> Andres