On 08/09/2013 06:00 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 06:20:02PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> On 08/09/2013 04:34 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, I figured it out.
>>>
>>> One of several problems with the formatting of this patchset is that it
>>> has one- and t
On 08/09/2013 06:34 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The kbuild test bot is reporting some pretty serious errors for this
patchset. I think these are serious enough that the patchset will need
to be respun.
Sent V13, there were 3 patches in total that changed due to dependency.
--
To unsubscribe f
On 08/09/2013 06:34 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The kbuild test bot is reporting some pretty serious errors for this
patchset. I think these are serious enough that the patchset will need
to be respun.
There were two problems:
(1) we were including spinlock_types.h in
arch/x86/include/asm/para
On 08/09/2013 06:30 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
My bad. I 'll send out in uniform digit form next time.
If you use 'git format-patch --subject-prefix "PATCH V14" v3.11-rc4..'
and 'git send-email --subject "[PATCH V14] bla blah" ..'
that should be automatically taken care of?
Thanks Kon
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 06:20:02PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 04:34 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> >Okay, I figured it out.
> >
> >One of several problems with the formatting of this patchset is that it
> >has one- and two-digit patch numbers in the headers, which meant that my
On 08/09/2013 04:34 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Okay, I figured it out.
One of several problems with the formatting of this patchset is that it
has one- and two-digit patch numbers in the headers, which meant that my
scripts tried to apply patch 10 first.
My bad. I 'll send out in uniform digi
On 08/09/2013 06:34 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The kbuild test bot is reporting some pretty serious errors for this
patchset. I think these are serious enough that the patchset will need
to be respun.
I am working on that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-
The kbuild test bot is reporting some pretty serious errors for this
patchset. I think these are serious enough that the patchset will need
to be respun.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
On 08/08/2013 02:13 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 06:02 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 08:50:12PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:15:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Please
On 08/07/2013 06:02 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 08:50:12PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:15:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Please let me know, if I should rebase again.
>
>
On 08/07/2013 12:15 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
tip:master is not a stable branch; it is more like linux-next. We need
to figure out which topic branches are dependencies for this set.
Okay. I 'll start looking at the branches that would get affect
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 08:50:12PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:15:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > >>Please let me know, if I should rebase again.
> > >>
> > >
> > >tip:master is not a stable branch; it is
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:15:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >>Please let me know, if I should rebase again.
> >>
> >
> >tip:master is not a stable branch; it is more like linux-next. We need
> >to figure out which topic branches are dependenci
On 08/07/2013 10:18 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Please let me know, if I should rebase again.
tip:master is not a stable branch; it is more like linux-next. We need
to figure out which topic branches are dependencies for this set.
Okay. I 'll start looking at the branches that would get affec
On 08/06/2013 07:54 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 02:31 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> What is the baseline for this patchset? I tried to apply it on top of
>> 3.11-rc4 and I got nontrivial conflicts.
>>
>
> I had based it on top of 445363e8 [ Merge branch 'perf/urgent']
> of tip.
On 08/07/2013 02:31 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
What is the baseline for this patchset? I tried to apply it on top of
3.11-rc4 and I got nontrivial conflicts.
I had based it on top of 445363e8 [ Merge branch 'perf/urgent']
of tip. Sorry for not mentioning that.
Please let me know, if I shoul
On 08/06/2013 04:40 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
> with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
> implementation for both Xen and KVM.
>
> The current set of patches are for Xen/x86 spinlock/KVM guest side, to
17 matches
Mail list logo
