Hi Jeremy,
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:53:39 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 09/13/2011 08:07 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:54:41 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:12:33 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On 08/25/2011 04:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>>>>> Stephen: the x86/spinlocks branch in the -tip tree is obsolete and
> >>>>>> should be dropped.
> >>>>> That's a bit tricky as I get a rolled up tip tree. The best I could do
> >>>>> is revert the commit that merges the x86/spinlocks branch into
> >>>>> auto-latest ... I'll do that for today (unless something happens to the
> >>>>> tip tree in the next hour).
> >>>>>
> >>>> OK, let me bother Ingo about it.
> >>> For today, I have done "git revert -m 1 6f8fa39c81f1" after merging the
> >>> tip tree.
> >> I am still doing this in each linux-next, and it doesn't appear to have
> >> been fixed up the the tree on tesla.tglx.de, yet, I think.
> > We'll take it out.
>
> Actually, the tip x86/spinlocks was the most up-to-date version of those
> patches (since hpa had rebased them to a more recent version of mainline).
>
> But never mind. Stephen, could you use
>
> git://github.com/jsgf/linux-xen.git upstream/xen
>
> for linux-next instead of the kernel.org xen.git, and I've re-added the
> up-to-date spinlock changes there.
OK, I have switched to this from today.
My understanding is this: I do *not* need to revert the spinlock changes
from tip anymore, correct?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgp5mZMxQM9MI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home