linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] X86/XEN: Merge x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_start and x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_done setup functions and document its semantic

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1208221618380.2856@ionos>
Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:19:47 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
cc:	Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@...rix.com>, Ian.Campbell@...rix.com,
	Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] X86/XEN: Merge x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_start
 and x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_done setup functions and document its
 semantic

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:22:03PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Attilio Rao wrote:
> > > Differences with v1:
> > > - The patch serie is re-arranged in a way that it helps reviews, following
> > >   a plan by Thomas Gleixner
> > > - The PVOPS nomenclature is not used as it is not correct
> > > - The front-end message is adjusted with feedback by Thomas Gleixner,
> > >   Stefano Stabellini and Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 
> > 
> > This is much simpler to read and review. Just have a look at the
> > diffstats of the two series:
> > 
> >  6 files changed,  9 insertions(+),  8 deletions(-)
> >  6 files changed, 11 insertions(+),  9 deletions(-)
> >  5 files changed, 50 insertions(+),  2 deletions(-)
> >  6 files changed,  2 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
> >  1 files changed,  5 insertions(+),  0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > versus
> > 
> >  6 files changed, 10 insertions(+),  9 deletions(-)
> >  6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >  5 files changed,  3 insertions(+),  3 deletions(-)
> >  6 files changed,  4 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >  1 files changed,  5 insertions(+),  0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > The overall result is basically the same, but it's way simpler to look
> > at obvious and well done patches than checking whether a subtle copy
> > and paste bug happened in 3/5 of the first version. Copy and paste is
> > the #1 cause for subtle bugs. :)
> > 
> > I'm waiting for the ack of Xen folks before taking it into tip.
> 
> I've some extra patches that modify the new "paginig_init" in the Xen
> code that I am going to propose for v3.7 - so will have some merge
> conflicts. Let me figure that out and also run this set of patches
> (and also the previous one .. which I think you didn't have a
> chance to look since you were on vacation?) on an overnight

Which previous one ?

> test to make sure there are no fallout.
> 
> With the merge issues that are going to prop up (x86 tip tree
> and my tree in linux-next) should I just take these patches
> in my tree with your Ack? Or should I just ingest your tiptree
> in my tree and that way solve the merge issue? What's your
> preference!

Having it in tip in an extra branch which you pull into your
tree. That's the easiest one.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/