On 08/07/2013 06:02 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 08:50:12PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:15:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>>> Please let me know, if I should rebase again.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> tip:master is not a stable branch; it is more like linux-next. We need
>>>> to figure out which topic branches are dependencies for this set.
>>>
>>> Okay. I 'll start looking at the branches that would get affected.
>>> (Xen, kvm are obvious ones).
>>> Please do let me know the branches I might have to check for.
>>
>> >From the Xen standpoint anything past v3.11-rc4 would work.
>>
> For KVM as early as past v3.11-rc1 would be OK.
>
I'm still completely confused as to the base of this patchset. The
first patch has the following hunk for arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h:
--- arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
+++ arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
@@ -718,7 +718,7 @@
PVOP_VCALLEE2(pv_lock_ops.lock_spinning, lock, ticket);
}
-static __always_inline void ____ticket_unlock_kick(struct arch_spinlock
*lock,
+static __always_inline void __ticket_unlock_kick(struct arch_spinlock
*lock,
__ticket_t ticket)
{
PVOP_VCALL2(pv_lock_ops.unlock_kick, lock, ticket);
However, there is no ticket_unlock_kick in paravirt.h in either
tip:master nor in linus...
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
