On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 17:13 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 08:27:08AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > > This simply preserves the original error check in the code. This error > > check makes sure that all CPUs have the PAT feature supported when PAT > > is enabled. This error can only happen when heterogeneous CPUs are > > installed/emulated on the system/guest. This check may be paranoid, but > > this cleanup is not meant to modify such an error check. > > No, this is a ridiculous attempt to justify crazy code. Please do it > right. If the cleanup makes the code more insane than it is, then don't > do it in the first place. Well, the change is based on this review comment. So, I am not sure what would be the right thing to do. I am not 100% certain that this check can be removed, either. https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/22/148 > > Can you consider the patch 10/12-11/12 as a separate patchset from the > > WT series? If that is OK, I will resubmit 10/12 (BUG->panic) and 11/12 > > (commit log update). > > That's not enough. 11/12 is a convoluted mess which needs splitting and > more detailed explanations in the commit messages. > > So no. Read what I said: do the cleanup *first* , *then* add the new > functionality. > > The WT patches shouldn't change all too much from what you have now. > Also, 11/12 changes stuff which you add in 1/12. This churn is useless > and shouldn't be there at all. > > So you should be able to do the cleanup first and have the WT stuff > ontop just fine. OK, I will do the cleanup first and resubmit the patchset based on tip/master. Thanks, -Toshi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>