On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 01:06 -0700, 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 Yep, fairly clear. There was some naming queries about the DISABLE_INTERRUPTS vs _CLI etc, but I think they're OK. > unfix-fixmap.patch OK, I'm still not convinced on making __FIXMAP_TOP a variable rather than just defining it to something in the paravirt_ops structure. The latter is a 3 line patch, and much clearer in intent. > fixmap-bootparam.patch While this would justify the above patch, it is IMHO, the wrong approach for adding a paravirt module later: a module shouldn't fail to load because you forgot a boot cmdline param. I really think a #ifdef CONFIG_XXX_MODULE would be clearer. > remove-read-hazard-from-cow.patch > pte-clear-not-present.patch > pgd-free-mm.patch These look like general goodness to me. > notes-segment.patch Be nice to see a user of this infrastructure, given it's fairly significant. Didn't someone mention PPC using something like this? Could we turn this into a "move infrastructure into arch-indep" patch? > Yes? No? Maybe? Post more? Post less? Post those, I'd say. I think it's your turn? Rusty. -- Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law
