Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:08:36 -0700 | From | Suresh Siddha <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/9] x86, xsave: xsave/xrstor support |
| |
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 09:31:41AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > > > >>> hpa, these patches just apply fine to tip/master. Can you please > >>> arrange the tip/x86/xsave tree accordingly? or do I need to do > >>> something else to smooth this process? > >> This is awkward, since that means this is "derived topic". Most of > >> the changes are orthogonal and relatively trivial to fix up at merge > >> time, so I would prefer to keep them separate. > > > > Well, in this case the conflicts seem to be quite heavy, so i'd suggest > > to use the method we have used for x86/x2apic and for xen-64bit: > > > > Merge the affected topics into tip/x86/core. Then merge x86/core into > > x86/xsave, and put the xsave patches ontop of that base. > > > > This way x86/xsave is a 'derived' topic and optional until it's proven, > > but one that is still mergable once all the dependent topics go > > upstream. We'd only have to rebase it in the (unlikely) event of there > > being some major problem with any of the topics merged into x86/core. > > > > ok? > > It somewhat concerns me, because one of the conflicts is generated by > collision with x2apic. The rest of them I don't think are too problematic.
hpa, confilicts with x2apic branch are very small and related to cpuid bits.
commit 04df16d2465cbb59b84c9c57ad865dbbeebadad8 Author: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Date: Tue Jul 29 10:29:18 2008 -0700
x86, xsave: xsave cpuid feature bits
Add xsave CPU feature bits.
and
commit 32e1d0a0651004f5fe47f85a2a5c725ad579a90c Author: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Date: Thu Jul 10 11:16:50 2008 -0700
x64, x2apic/intr-remap: cpuid bits for x2apic feature
cpuid feature for x2apic.
Both of these patches are straight forward, simple and can be moved to x86/core(?) now, if that helps.
thanks, suresh
| |