[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54E44DF8.1080906@freescale.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:31:52 +0200
From: Purcareata Bogdan <b43198@...escale.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
CC: <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>, <scottwood@...escale.com>,
Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@...escale.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: Convert openpic lock to raw_spinlock
On 17.02.2015 19:59, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 2015-02-17 18:53:17 [+0100]:
>
>> * Purcareata Bogdan | 2015-02-17 14:27:44 [+0200]:
>>
>>> Ping?
>>>
>>> On 02.02.2015 11:35, Purcareata Bogdan wrote:
>>>> Ping?
>>
>> No body?
> bah! That mutt thing is too fast.
>
> The raw conversation looks sane and could go upstream. This other chunk:
>
> |+#if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL) && defined(CONFIG_KVM_MPIC)
> |+/* Limit the number of vcpus due to in-kernel mpic concurrency */
> |+#define KVM_MAX_VCPUS 4
> |+#define KVM_MAX_VCORES 4
> |+#else
> | #define KVM_MAX_VCPUS NR_CPUS
> | #define KVM_MAX_VCORES NR_CPUS
> |+#endif
>
> should be a separate patch. Please repost including ppc ml.
Thanks! Will send a patchset separating these 2 functional changes - the
openpic raw_spinlock for upstream ppc (since it doesn't bring any
changes anyway), and the MAX_VCPUS limitation for the RT tree.
> This remains of my multiple-MSI patch which someone other posted a while
> ago. What happend to it?
I'm not aware of this patch, could you give more details, please?
Bogdan P.
--
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