[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Not really merged? Re: [merged] x86-paravirt-pte-updates-in-kunmap_atomic-need-to-be-synchronous-regardless-of-lazy_mmu-mode.patch removed from -mm tree
> > But IMO it's at least as important to figure out what went wrong. I 
> > somehow doubt it that you spuriously dropped it - that someone else
> > messes up has a far higher likelihood.
> My drop was legitimate.
> Here's the commit from the Oct 14 linux-next:
> commit ab67482036cee590753dd42b7f66aada97e6dcde
> Author: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <>
> AuthorDate: Fri Sep 23 17:02:29 2011 -0400
> Commit: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <>
> CommitDate: Mon Sep 26 09:12:37 2011 -0400
.. snip..
> I'm not sure what to make of that. The signoffs imply that Konrad is
> running his own git tree, but I don't think he is. Or someone (Jeremy
> or Rusty I think) merged it but didn't add a signoff.

Hey Andrew,

I am running my own tree (git://

> Note that the patch was merged using its old name "x86/paravirt:
> Partially revert "remove lazy mode in interrupts"". The patch got
> renamed to "x86/paravirt: PTE updates in k(un)map_atomic need to be
> synchronous, regardless of lazy_mmu mode" and perhaps this prompted
> someone to drop the old-named patch then lose the new-named one.

I am at loss as why I had that patch in my tree. I *might* have merged
in my #linux-next to compile/build/run-time test and then pushed that
tree. But I can't recall exactly why I would have done that (the push).

The fault is with me and I am sorry for making you (and Ingo) spend the
whole night digging through linux-next git history to figure this out.

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-28 16:37    [W:0.062 / U:1.568 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site