WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [GIT PULL] (xen) pm-bug-fixes for 2.6.32

On 2011-03-22, at 6:43 AM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 23:10 +0000, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>        On 03/21/2011 03:13 AM, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote:
>>> Hi Jeremy,
>>> 
>>> Can you please pull
>>> 
>>> git://athos.nss.cs.ubc.ca/linux-2.6-pvops.git
>> 
>>> <http://athos.nss.cs.ubc.ca/linux-2.6-pvops.git>
>>        xen/pm-bug-fix
>>> 
>>> #xen/pm-bug-fix is based off xen/next-2.6.32,
>>> commit ea954f6ff4ff5c15c9e2120e86335f6d6490ae0f
>>> "Merge commit 'konrad-xen/for-2.6.32/bug-fixes~1' into
>>        xen/next-2.6.32"
>>> 
>>> All patches in this branch have been merged into upstream
>>        kernel.
>> 
>> 
>>        Are they marked to go into the stable/longterm tree, or are we
>>        just
>>        going to maintain them separately?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think these should go into the longterm tree. I am a bit clueless as
>> to what you
>> exactly mean by "maintaining them separately". I thought next-2.6.32
>> was meant 
>> as a staging area, that later gets pushed to stable-2.6.32.x
> 
> I think Jeremy is asking whether these should go in via the upstream
> "longterm" 2.6.32.y branch rather than only going into the
> xen/next-2.6.32 branch.
> 
Thanks Ian. 
Jeremy, I am not sure when/if these are going to go into the longterm branch. 
But I think these should go into xen/next-2.6.32 atleast for the benefit of 
folks who build both dom0 & domU out of your tree(the "make kernels" target in 
xen source).


> It's an interesting question. These patches depend (at least textually,
> but also functionally, I think?) on a bunch of the cleanups done in
> upstream (which also includes PVHVM support which isn't in mainline
> 2.6.32).
Yes but your refactoring patches are in xen/next-2.6.32 and that's what these 
patches depend on AFAICT.
> I guess it would be possible to backport these to mainline
> 2.6.32 without all that stuff (or perhaps suggest other bits for
> mainline backport too). I'm not sure it's completely worth it in this
> case though.
> 
> Ian.
> 
>> 
>> Konrad/Ian ?
>> 
>> shriram
>>   J
>> 
>>> 
>>> The diffstat:
>>> 
>>> drivers/xen/manage.c                       |   16
>>        ++++++++--------
>>> drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_probe.c |   12
>>        ++++++++++--
>>> drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_probe.h |    3 ++-
>>> drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_probe_frontend.c |   26
>>> ++++++++++++++++----------
>>> include/xen/xenbus.h                       |    2 +-
>>> 5 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>> Kazuhiro SUZUKI (1):
>>>     xen: xenbus PM events support
>>> 
>>> Shriram Rajagopalan (1):
>>>      xen: use freeze/restore/thaw PM events for
>>        suspend/resume/chkpt
>>> 
>>> shriram
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel