Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Looks to me like the first series of patches should be OK to post > now. I propose that: > > 001-apply-to-page-range.patch > 001a-reboot-use-struct.patch > 002-sync-bitops.patch > 003-remove-ring0-assumptions.patch > 004-abstract-asm.patch > 005-cpuid-cleanup.patch > unfix-fixmap.patch > fixmap-bootparam.patch > remove-read-hazard-from-cow.patch > pte-clear-not-present.patch > pgd-free-mm.patch > notes-segment.patch > > are all good candidates for posting. I just went through all these > and cleaned them up a bit, mostly by adding Subject: lines and > diffstats, but I also merged unfix-fixmap-fix.patch with > unfix-fixmap.patch and renamed fixmap-bootparam to > fixmap-bootparam.patch. > > Oh, and these patches seem to work OK too. I'm running my laptop with > this part of the series applied, and it seems fine. > > Yes? No? Maybe? Post more? Post less? Thanks for combining the patches (and fixing my unfix-fixmap-fix patch). Yes. Maybe more. I'd like to see Ian, Keir and Andrew's feedback on the applicability of the lazy MMU mode patches to Xen. I'd also like to get my ptep_establish optimization into the -mm tree asap. Not that either of these are a blocker. What we have now is good for everyone, I think. Zach
