On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 17:51 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:18:47PM +0530, Hemant Kumar escreveu: > > >Should I try to process the 5 together, applying thest two first? > > > Yes, this patchset needs to be applied before applying the other patchset, > > since there is a direct dependency on these two for the tooling part to > > work. > > > >I see there are no acks from powerpc arch maintainers, how should we > > >proceed here? If there are no problems with the arch bits, and if it is > > >just to enable the tooling part, again, should I process the 5 as just > > >one series? > > > The reason to split the earlier patchset into two was to separate the > > tooling/perf/ and arch/powerpc/ side patches, as asked by Michael.. > > > Here is the link to that discussion : > > http://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg86916.html > > > If Michael is ok with the patches, you can process all the 5 patches > > together. Michael? > > Michael?
I'm not particularly happy with it. Can we at least remove this hunk from the uapi header: +/* This is to shut the compiler up */ +#define KVM_ENTRY_TRACE "" +#define KVM_EXIT_TRACE "" +#define KVM_EXIT_REASON "" cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
