[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54C76334.2080003@citrix.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:06:44 +0000
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
<x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
<boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Luis Rodriguez <Mcgrof@...e.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] x86/xen: allow privcmd hypercalls to be preempted
on 64-bit
On 27/01/15 08:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 27.01.15 at 02:51, <mcgrof@...not-panic.com> wrote:
>
> Even if David told you this would be acceptable, I have to question
> an abstract model of fixing issues on only 64-bit kernels - this may
> be acceptable for distro purposes, but seems hardly the right
> approach for upstream. If 32-bit ones are to become deliberately
> broken, the XEN config option should become dependent on !X86_32.
I'd rather have something omitted (keeping the current behaviour) than
something that has not been tested at all.
Obviously it would be preferable to to fix both 32-bit and 64-bit x86
(and ARM as well) but I'm not going to block an important bug fix for
the majority use case (64-bit x86).
David
--
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