On 9 Nov 2006 08:31:58 +0100 Andi Kleen <ak at muc.de> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:20:14PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:01:42 +1100 > > Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > > > > > OK, at least two patches got dropped on the way from the mm tree to > > > Andi's tree: the desc.h cleanup, and the processor.h rearrangement. > > > Merging into Andi's tree without these patches must have been a > > > nightmare 8( > > > > > > Andi then tried to fix it with x86_64-mm-paravirt-compile.patch but then > > > it didn't boot so he disabled it in x86_64-mm-paravirt-broken.patch > > > > > > This patch undoes those two patches and rearranges processor.h correctly > > > so the kernel compiles and boots with CONFIG_PARAVIRT. Andi's > > > "paravirt-compile" patch also cleans up the spinlock header, which is > > > good but should probably be patched separately. > > > > Fun. Andi, I have a mountain of fixes against your tree. Whatever you > > do, don't change anything! I'll get it all sent over later today. > > I think for the paravirt ops stuff it would be best to respin it -- e.g. > let Rusty submit a new clean patchkit. That's much better than trying > to add lots of fixup patches. That's what I'm doing. > I'll go through the other patches. OK. Please drop all the paravirt patches, publish a new tree then let us know when it's there.
