On 04/23/2014 10:56 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:23:43AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/18/2014 05:40 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/18/2014 03:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 01:52:50PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
I am confused by your notation.
Nah, I think I was confused :-) Make the 1 _Q_LOCKED_VAL though, as
that's the proper constant to use.
Everyone gets confused once in a while:-) I have plenty of that myself.
I will change 1 to _Q_LOCKED_VAL as suggested.
-Longman
The attached patch file contains the additional changes that I had
made to qspinlock.c file so far. Please let me know if you or others
have any additional feedbacks or changes that will need to go to the
next version of the patch series.
I am going to take vacation starting from tomorrow and will be back
on 5/5 (Mon). So I will not be able to respond to emails within this
period.
BTW, is there any chance that this patch can be merged to 3.16?
Um, it needs to have Acks from KVM and Xen maintainers who have not
done so. Also Peter needs to chime in. (BTW, please CC
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx next time you post so that David and Boris
can take a peek at it).
I will cc xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx when I sent out the next patch.
I would strongly recommend you put all your patches on github (free git
service) so that we can test it and poke it at during your vacation
(and even after).
I am not used to setting up a public repo in github. If I create a repo
there, should I put a snapshot of the whole kernel source tree or just a
portion of the relevant files as the base? With the later, it won't be
buildable.
-Longman
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
