Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:47:25 +0100 | From | Attilio Rao <> | Subject | 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 |
| |
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
| |