Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

[Ingo Molnar]

* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Jan 18, 2008 8:02 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > * Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y.
> > > > Which means you did not even build-test it on 32-bit, let alone boot
> > > > test it...
> > >
> > > Why are we rushing so much to do 64-bit paravirt that we are breaking
> > > working configurations?  If the developement is going to be this
> > > chaotic, it should be done and tested out of tree until it can
> > > stabilize.
> >
> > what you see is a open feedback cycle conducted on lkml. People send
> > patches for arch/x86, and we tell them if it breaks something. The bug
> > was found before i pushed out the x86.git devel tree (and the fix is
> > below - but this shouldnt matter to you because the bug never hit a
> > public x86.git tree).
> >
> >         Ingo
> >
> Other than this, it seems to build and boot fine.
> 
> Do you want me to resend ?

no, this was the only small problem i found, your series looks good to 
me and is included in latest x86.git.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/