[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52006474.6010109@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:20:28 +0530
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.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
On 08/06/2013 04:20 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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;
Yes. Only one patch would be common to both host and guest which will
be sent as a separate patch.
I 'll rebase first patchset to -next and second patchset to kvm tree as
needed.
> 2. There are at least two versions of patch 15; I think the "PATCH
> RESEND RFC" is the right one.
True.
> 3. Patch 18 is controversial but there are performance numbers; these
> should be integrated in the patch description.
Current plan is to drop for patch 18 for now.
--
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