Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] iommu-2.6.git tree | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:42:44 +0100 |
| |
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 19:26 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 14:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 13:12 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 04:30:43PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > > As previously threatened, I've created an iommu-2.6.git tree: > > > > > > git://git.infradead.org/iommu-2.6.git > > > > > > http://git.infradead.org/iommu-2.6.git > > > > > > > > > > Is there a specific reason why IOMMU stuff should go to Linus > > > > > without testing them in the x86 tree before? The DMA layer and IOMMU > > > > > drivers are an integral component of the architecture and patches > > > > > for it are best placed in the architecture tree instead of a > > > > > seperate one, imho. > > > > > > > > This is the purpose that linux-next serves, not the x86 > > > > forest-of-doom. > > > > > > > > And I thought Ingo said his old iommu tree wasn't in there anyway? > > > > [...] > > > > > > That's weird, where did you get the impression from that i "dropped" the > > > "old" IOMMU tree? It's alive and kicking, all the new IOMMU code that we > > > queued up and tested in the last cycle for v2.6.28 have just gone > > > upstream - about 80 commits. > > > > I cannot find the tree which allegedly already exists [...] > > it's tip/auto-iommu-next.
I have no idea what that means.
I tried 'locate auto-iommu-next' on master.kernel.org, but that doesn't seem to find anything -- is it elsewhere?
Can you give a proper URL for a git tree, with a description explaining its nature, and everything that one would normally expect from a git tree?
> > [...] -- and unless I'm mistaken, a number of patches seem to have > > fallen through the cracks in the last few weeks. Since I've been asked > > to start looking after the Intel IOMMU parts, it seemed sensible to > > make a git tree and round up those patches. > > hm, no patches have been lost that i'm aware of - the last ~10 days of > inbox is not queued up yet because of the merge window - but those > (except for urgent fixes) are v2.6.29 items anyway.
There were patches outstanding which depended on both the interrupt remapping and the KVM work. And which add IA64 support for VT-d.
> > I thought you and Thomas were working together, and I spoke to Thomas > > about it during the Kernel Summit. Unless I'm very much mistaken, he > > agreed that it makes sense to have a separate, real, git tree for > > cross-platform IOMMU-related work. > > > > If you want to pull that tree into yours, that's fine by me -- as long > > as it gets into linux-next. > > okay, we can certainly do that. And if/when all future activities center > around your tree, and there's no interaction with x86 platform bits, it > will be natural for you to just not go over any middlemen. > > But i'd prefer to at least have some transitionary period - IOMMU > changes are not easy topics and they caused subtle breakages a couple of > times and it was quite handy that those breakages were generally seen by > all x86 developers (and immediately fixed afterwards). 99% of the > current iommu development activities are in the x86 space, so there's > quite some alignment there.
Again, isn't this what linux-next is for? But if you want to pull it into your own linux-next-but-only-for-x86 tree, then that's fine too; as I said.
-- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation
| |