Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. > Yes, I know. > <ten compiles later> > > It all looks good to me. > Ah, ok, now I know what that was. It was pre-emptively fixing a later PAE breakage caused by some include file manipulations that happen if you include pgtable.h in certain assembler files. Zach
