[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52002C49.1060201@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 15:50:49 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: gleb@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com, jeremy@...p.org, x86@...nel.org,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, peterz@...radead.org,
mtosatti@...hat.com, stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com,
andi@...stfloor.org, attilio.rao@...rix.com, ouyang@...pitt.edu,
gregkh@...e.de, agraf@...e.de, chegu_vinod@...com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, avi.kivity@...il.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com, drjones@...hat.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V11 0/18] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
So, having read through the entire thread I *think* this is what the
status of this patchset is:
1. Patches 1-17 are noncontroversial, Raghavendra is going to send an
update split into two patchsets;
2. There are at least two versions of patch 15; I think the "PATCH
RESEND RFC" is the right one.
3. Patch 18 is controversial but there are performance numbers; these
should be integrated in the patch description.
4. People are in general OK with us putting this patchset into -tip for
testing, once the updated (V12) patchset is posted.
If I'm misunderstanding something, it is because of excessive thread
length as mentioned by Ingo.
Either way, I'm going to hold off on putting it into -tip until tomorrow
unless Ingo beats me to it.
-hpa
--
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