Hi Jeremy, On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:53:39 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 09/13/2011 08:07 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:54:41 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:12:33 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> On 08/25/2011 04:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>>>>> Stephen: the x86/spinlocks branch in the -tip tree is obsolete and > >>>>>> should be dropped. > >>>>> That's a bit tricky as I get a rolled up tip tree. The best I could do > >>>>> is revert the commit that merges the x86/spinlocks branch into > >>>>> auto-latest ... I'll do that for today (unless something happens to the > >>>>> tip tree in the next hour). > >>>>> > >>>> OK, let me bother Ingo about it. > >>> For today, I have done "git revert -m 1 6f8fa39c81f1" after merging the > >>> tip tree. > >> I am still doing this in each linux-next, and it doesn't appear to have > >> been fixed up the the tree on tesla.tglx.de, yet, I think. > > We'll take it out. > > Actually, the tip x86/spinlocks was the most up-to-date version of those > patches (since hpa had rebased them to a more recent version of mainline). > > But never mind. Stephen, could you use > > git://github.com/jsgf/linux-xen.git upstream/xen > > for linux-next instead of the kernel.org xen.git, and I've re-added the > up-to-date spinlock changes there. OK, I have switched to this from today. My understanding is this: I do *not* need to revert the spinlock changes from tip anymore, correct? -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpRmNpzWjetg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
