On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> > > All the ia64 pvops code is now dead code since both > xen and kvm support have been ripped out [0] [1]. Just > that no one had troubled to rip this stuff out. The only > useful remaining pieces were the old pvops docs but that > was recently also generalized and moved out from ia64 [2]. > > This has been run time tested on an ia64 Madison system. > > [0] 003f7de625890 "KVM: ia64: remove" since v3.19-rc1 > [1] d52eefb47d4eb "ia64/xen: Remove Xen support for ia64" since v3.14-rc1 > [2] "virtual: Documentation: simplify and generalize paravirt_ops.txt" > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> > --- > I've build and run time tested this against linux-next tag next-20150529. > The build will fail if you've enabled the LKDTM (Linux Kernel Dump Test > Tool Module) enabled on SLE11 ia64 builds, a fix for which I've just > posted [3]. > > [3] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=143327018731361&w=2 So this builds cleanly on all my test configurations, and boots on the one machine that I tried it on - good job. But I'm wondering how much of this was auto-generated (and so perhaps free from typos) and how much was done by hand? It isn't a full revert of the patch series that added paravirt ... you simplified macros like: #define MOV_TO_KR(kr, reg, clob0, clob1) \ - mov IA64_KR(kr) = reg \ - CLOBBER(clob0) \ - CLOBBER(clob1) + mov IA64_KR(kr) = reg but didn't remove them completely. So what can I do to validate this 4000+ line patch? Can I compare disassembled ".o" files pre/post patch somehow to be sure this doesn't have some small typo errors somewhere? -Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|