linux-kernel - RE: linux-next: build failure after merge of the xen-two tree

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: <DE8DF0795D48FD4CA783C40EC82923353FCCAC@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Sun, 17 Feb 2013 07:31:37 +0000
From:	"Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@...el.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: RE: linux-next: build failure after merge of the xen-two tree

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, February 16, 2013 01:52:00 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:53:34 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
>> wrote: 
>>> 
>>> On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:50:14 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:26:24 -0500 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
>>>> <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you. I keep on forgetting - but would it be OK for me to
>>>>> take this patch in my tree? Or should I not since this is a new
>>>>> functionality that Rafael is going to introduce in v3.9?
>>>> 
>>>> It is an API change in the pm tree that is not yet in Linus' tree.
>>>> 
>>>>> And if so, perhaps I should tack it on in my tree, once Rafael
>>>>> does a git pull to Linus? Or just point Linus to this git commit?
>>>> 
>>>> You should point Linus at this patch if the pm tree is merged
>>>> first, or 
>>>> Rafael should do the same if the reverse happens.
>>> 
>>> Alternatively, Konrad can pull the acpi-scan branch containing the
>>> changes in question from my tree into his tree and rebase the new
>>> material on top of that.
>> 
>> Or pull the acpi-scan branch into his tree and use my conflict
>> resolution in the resulting merge thus requiring no rebasing. 
>> However, Linus likes to see such interactions, so it can be left up
>> to when the latter of the two tress is merged by Linus.
> 
> Well, I'm afraid this won't be sufficient this time, because of this
> commit in my tree (which is not on the acpi-scan branch):
> 
> commit 3757b94802fb65d8f696597a74053cf21738da0b
> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> Date:   Wed Feb 13 14:36:47 2013 +0100
> 
>     ACPI / hotplug: Fix concurrency issues and memory leaks
> 
> after which acpi_bus_scan() and acpi_bus_trim() have to be run under
> acpi_scan_lock (new in my tree as well).

Yes, we noticed that and only need minor updates at xen side, will send out 2 xen patches later accordingly, for cleanup and adding lock.

Thanks,
Jinsong

> 
> Moreover, I think that the introduction of ACPI-based CPU hotplug
> into Xen and this point would be premature, because we need to rework
> the original ACPI-based CPU hotplug and quite frankly it shouldn't
> call acpi_bus_scan() directly at all.
> 
> Konrad?
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael

--
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/