[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z9QACrqCIxcZuY0U@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:08:10 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [tip: x86/cpu] x86/xen: Move Xen upcall handler to Xen specific
code files
* Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
> On 14.03.25 10:47, tip-bot2 for Brian Gerst wrote:
> > The following commit has been merged into the x86/cpu branch of tip:
> >
> > Commit-ID: 827dc2e36172e978d6b1c701b04bee56881f54bf
> > Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/827dc2e36172e978d6b1c701b04bee56881f54bf
> > Author: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
> > AuthorDate: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 14:22:32 -04:00
> > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > CommitterDate: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:32:51 +01:00
> >
> > x86/xen: Move Xen upcall handler to Xen specific code files
> >
> > Move the upcall handler to Xen-specific files.
> >
> > No functional changes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
> > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
> > Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250313182236.655724-2-brgerst@gmail.com
>
> Why do I even request changes if such a request is being ignored?
I missed your mail, sorry.
> Please note that my request wasn't about something which should be
> handled in a followup patch. I was asking to NOT move the code into
> multiple files, but to keep it in one file as it was originally.
I agree with you that this code looks better in enlighten_pv.c, but
there's no reason to keep arch/x86/entry/common.c, agreed?
I've rolled back these changes and will wait for -v2.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists