On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:46:50 -0700 Zachary Amsden <zach at vmware.com> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > Guys, could you please confirm that these patches from -mm: > > > > paravirt-remove-read-hazard-from-cow.patch > > paravirt-pte-clear-not-present.patch > > paravirt-lazy-mmu-mode-hooks.patch > > paravirt-combine-flush-accessed-dirty.patch > > paravirt-kpte-flush.patch > > paravirt-optimize-ptep-establish-for-pae.patch > > paravirt-remove-set-pte-atomic.patch > > paravirt-pae-compile-fix.patch > > paravirt-update-pte-hook.patch > > > > are suitable for mainline inclusion? > > > > Yes, these are all originally by me, and they are suitable for > mainline. They are either nops in mainline or are actually enhancements > to mainline, simplifying or optimizing the pte accessors on i386 and > have zero impact (or improved) impact on code generation and > performance. OK, thanks. > The only regrettable fact is that I broke PAE somewhere in > the middle of the series (thus requiring paravirt-pae-compile-fix as a > separate patch, when I should have rolled the fix into the proper > patch). I can find no PAE compile error, and paravirt-pae-compile-fix.patch just removes a few config.h inclusions. > But if you take the whole batch, there is no problem. Well we don't like to break the build partway through a patch series because that makes git-bisecting a pain if you happen to land at a bad spot. <ten compiles later> It all looks good to me.
