On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:19:46 -0300
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:06:35PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > Avi, Marcelo,
> >
> > here are some more s390 patches for the next release.
> >
> > Patches 1 and 2 are included for dependency reasons; they will also
> > be sent through Martin's s390 tree.
>
> I don't see why patch 1 is a dependency for merging in the kvm
> tree, and why patch 2 should go through both trees?
>
> That is, patch 1 can go through S390 tree, patches 2-6 through
> KVM tree. No?
Patch 3 has a dependency on patch 2 and patch 2 has a dependency
on patch 1. The hunk in pcpu_running would cause a reject:
@@ -155,8 +131,8 @@ static inline int pcpu_stopped(struct pcpu *pcpu)
static inline int pcpu_running(struct pcpu *pcpu)
{
- if (__pcpu_sigp(pcpu->address, sigp_sense_running,
- 0, &pcpu->status) != sigp_status_stored)
+ if (__pcpu_sigp(pcpu->address, SIGP_SENSE_RUNNING,
+ 0, &pcpu->status) != SIGP_CC_STATUS_STORED)
return 1;
/* Status stored condition code is equivalent to cpu not running. */
return 0;
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
