[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090919224430.GB9567@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:44:30 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: Paravirtualization on VMware's Platform [VMI].
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:17:08PM -0700, Alok Kataria wrote:
> Given this new development, I wanted to discuss how should we go about
> retiring the VMI code from mainline Linux, i.e. the vmi_32.c and
> vmiclock_32.c bits.
>
> One of the options that I am contemplating is to drop the code from the
> tip tree in this release cycle, and given that this should be a low risk
> change we can remove it from Linus's tree later in the merge cycle.
That sounds good to me, how intrusive are the patches to do this? Is it
going to be tricky to get everything merged properly in -tip for it?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists