[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:0.022 / U:4.868 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site