Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:08:39 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 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 |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:24:50 -0400 > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:51:48PM -0700, akpm@google.com wrote: > > > > > > The patch titled > > > Subject: x86/paravirt: PTE updates in k(un)map_atomic need to be synchronous, regardless of lazy_mmu mode > > > has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was > > > x86-paravirt-pte-updates-in-kunmap_atomic-need-to-be-synchronous-regardless-of-lazy_mmu-mode.patch > > > > > > This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree > > > > Hey Andrew, > > > > I am actually not seeing this in mainline? Was it accidently dropped out of your tree? > > hm, well spotted. I'm not sure what happened here - possibly the > patch was merged into an x86 tree (and hence linux-next) but later > got lost. Or possibly not, and I just screwed up.
No, a patch with the -i 'paravirt.*lazy' pattern never touched -tip, even temporarily.
Could it be that someone else (say the Xen guys) picked it up, it went into linux-next, you thought it's applied - but then they dropped it?
Do we have a full log of all linux-next patches?
> Either way, it's a pretty important patch - we marked it for > -stable backporting.
Agreed.
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.
> > If that is the case I can convience you to put it back in or can > > I drive it to Linus with your Ack-ed by? > > I resurrected my copy and shall send it along to the x86 guys soon.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |