lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: linux-next: build failure after merge of the xen-two tree
Date
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, February 16, 2013 01:52:00 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:53:34 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:50:14 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:26:24 -0500 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
>>>> <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you. I keep on forgetting - but would it be OK for me to
>>>>> take this patch in my tree? Or should I not since this is a new
>>>>> functionality that Rafael is going to introduce in v3.9?
>>>>
>>>> It is an API change in the pm tree that is not yet in Linus' tree.
>>>>
>>>>> And if so, perhaps I should tack it on in my tree, once Rafael
>>>>> does a git pull to Linus? Or just point Linus to this git commit?
>>>>
>>>> You should point Linus at this patch if the pm tree is merged
>>>> first, or
>>>> Rafael should do the same if the reverse happens.
>>>
>>> Alternatively, Konrad can pull the acpi-scan branch containing the
>>> changes in question from my tree into his tree and rebase the new
>>> material on top of that.
>>
>> Or pull the acpi-scan branch into his tree and use my conflict
>> resolution in the resulting merge thus requiring no rebasing.
>> However, Linus likes to see such interactions, so it can be left up
>> to when the latter of the two tress is merged by Linus.
>
> Well, I'm afraid this won't be sufficient this time, because of this
> commit in my tree (which is not on the acpi-scan branch):
>
> commit 3757b94802fb65d8f696597a74053cf21738da0b
> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> Date: Wed Feb 13 14:36:47 2013 +0100
>
> ACPI / hotplug: Fix concurrency issues and memory leaks
>
> after which acpi_bus_scan() and acpi_bus_trim() have to be run under
> acpi_scan_lock (new in my tree as well).

Yes, we noticed that and only need minor updates at xen side, will send out 2 xen patches later accordingly, for cleanup and adding lock.

Thanks,
Jinsong

>
> Moreover, I think that the introduction of ACPI-based CPU hotplug
> into Xen and this point would be premature, because we need to rework
> the original ACPI-based CPU hotplug and quite frankly it shouldn't
> call acpi_bus_scan() directly at all.
>
> Konrad?
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-17 09:21    [W:0.066 / U:2.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site