Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:28:29 +0100 | From | Attilio Rao <> | Subject | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/5] X86/XEN: Merge x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_start and x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_done setup functions and document its semantic |
| |
On 22/08/12 15:47, Attilio Rao wrote: > On 22/08/12 15:19, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> >> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:22:03PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Attilio Rao wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Differences with v1: >>>>> - The patch serie is re-arranged in a way that it helps reviews, following >>>>> a plan by Thomas Gleixner >>>>> - The PVOPS nomenclature is not used as it is not correct >>>>> - The front-end message is adjusted with feedback by Thomas Gleixner, >>>>> Stefano Stabellini and Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk >>>>> >>>>> >>>> This is much simpler to read and review. Just have a look at the >>>> diffstats of the two series: >>>> >>>> 6 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>> 6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>>> 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> 6 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) >>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> versus >>>> >>>> 6 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>>> 6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >>>> 5 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> 6 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> The overall result is basically the same, but it's way simpler to look >>>> at obvious and well done patches than checking whether a subtle copy >>>> and paste bug happened in 3/5 of the first version. Copy and paste is >>>> the #1 cause for subtle bugs. :) >>>> >>>> I'm waiting for the ack of Xen folks before taking it into tip. >>>> >>>> >>> I've some extra patches that modify the new "paginig_init" in the Xen >>> code that I am going to propose for v3.7 - so will have some merge >>> conflicts. Let me figure that out and also run this set of patches >>> (and also the previous one .. which I think you didn't have a >>> chance to look since you were on vacation?) on an overnight >>> >>> >> Which previous one ? >> >> > This one: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/21/369 > > but I would like to repost the patch serie skipping the referral to > PVOPS in the commit logs, I will do so right now, so please wait for > another patch serie. >
For your convenience: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/22/450
Attilio
| |