[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [git pull] x86 updates for v2.6.28, phase #2 - PAT updates

    * Linus Torvalds <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > >
    > > Ingo Molnar (12):
    > > Revert "reduce tlb/cache flush times of agpgart memory allocation"
    > > Revert "introduce two APIs for page attribute"
    > > Revert "x86: handle error returns in set_memory_*()"
    > > Revert "x86: track memtype for RAM in page struct"
    > > Revert "x86, cpa: global flush tlb after splitting large page and before doing cpa"
    > > Revert "x86, cpa: remove cpa pool code"
    > > Revert "x86, cpa: fix taking the pgd_lock with interrupts off"
    > > Revert "x86, cpa: dont use large pages for kernel identity mapping with DEBUG_PAGEALLOC"
    > > Revert "x86, cpa: make the kernel physical mapping initialization a two pass sequence"
    > > Revert "x86, cpa: remove USER permission from the very early identity mapping attribute"
    > > Revert "x86, cpa: rename PTE attribute macros for kernel direct mapping in early boot"
    > > x86, pat: cleanups
    > So half of the commits by Suresh were reverted.
    > Not only that, they were reverted WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATIONS OF
    > WHY THEY WERE CLEARLY BUGGY PILES OF CRUD. The revert messages are
    > just things like
    > This reverts commit <sha1>.
    > which makes both the original commit _and_ the revert just totally
    > pointless, because we didn't learn anything.

    hm, those reverts werent supposed to survive. Again, my bad. I'll clean
    it out.

    Here is how the screwup happened: a series was sent, i applied it, found
    a test failure with it and reported it:

    but to be able to continue testing i temporarily reverted those bits
    manually in reverse order, because it took some down to pin down the
    breakage and these bits got intermixed with other commits - and i did
    not want to rebase commits that came after the broken series.

    Then the corrected v2 series arrived (not a delta fix) and i applied
    those. The idea was to create a delta patch against the first series so
    that i can see the changes.

    v2 worked well in testing:

    So it's basically a v1 -> v2 sequence, with artificial reverts surviving
    unintentionally. That's why there were no revert messages either: i
    never intended them to become public. I even rember having taken a good
    look at "git diff 6b5b551..6e3e492", which the v1->v2 delta was.

    What i havent done was to squash all these artificial commits together
    and create the delta commit - this is one of the few cases where
    rebasing of that temporary tail would have been the right thing to do,
    before pushing it out.

    And i should also have noticed this weird sequence of commit logs when
    doing the pull request.

    Sorry :-(


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-10 18:49    [W:0.025 / U:72.868 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site