Xen project Mailing List

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: 2.6.39 merge window (git pulls and what is planned to go in)

To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

From: Shriram Rajagopalan <rshriram@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:12:39 -0700

Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>

Delivery-date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:14:15 -0700

List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 16:53 +0000, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Ian Campbell >> <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 14:21 +0000, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:11:31AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 19:29 +0000, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> >> > > Probably over the weekend Linus is going to open the merge window. >> >> > > >> >> > > This merge window is much more complicated than the previous >> >> > > one b/c we got a lot of good stuff. >> >> > > >> >> > > For my sanity and book-keeping I was thinking to email Linus >> >> > > five git pull requests: >> >> > [...] >> >> > > .. and then during the next week of the two weeks merge window: >> >> > [...] >> >> > > In this order or so. >> >> > >> >> > Seems sane. I'm going to rebase my dev tree onto all these now (I think >> >> > I've got most of it already) >> >> >> >> OK. #linux-next is you place then. >> >> > >> >> > > In other trees by other maintainers we have: >> >> > [...] >> >> > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/linux-pvhvm.git has >> >> > > xen suspend cleanups >> >> > > PVonHVM improvements - makes spinlocks be PV aware, balloon in HVM >> >> > >> >> > Are Shriram's suspend/checkpoint patches in the pipeline somewhere? >> >> >> >> <head smack> I knew I forgot something. >> >> >> >> The last I heard he was battling PVonHVM shutdown issues during his >> >> testing of his patches. >> >> >> >> Shririam? >> > >> > He posted a series on Saturday, rebased onto Stefano's PVHVM tree + the >> > PM tree, it looked sane to me. >> > >> > I think his patch 1/5 (the one from Kazuhiro Suzuki) could go in any >> > time since it has no dependency on either the PVHVM or PM trees. >> > >> > It also looks to me like patch 4/5 ("PM: Add visible >> > HIBERNATION_INTERFACE and hide HIBERNATION") could go upstream via the >> > PM tree whenever Rafael likes, since it doesn't depend on any of the >> > others. That just leaves 2/5, 3/5 and 5/5 to be pushed through once >> >> I wish it was that easy. Rafael's tree carries a commit that is >> missing from both >> Konrad's and Stefano's tree. >> >> "PM: Make CONFIG_PM depend on (CONFIG_PM_SLEEP || CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME)" >> >> --- a/arch/x86/xen/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/Kconfig >> @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ config XEN_MAX_DOMAIN_MEMORY >> >> config XEN_SAVE_RESTORE >> bool >> - depends on XEN && PM >> + depends on XEN >> default y >> >> config XEN_DEBUG_FS >> >> 5/5 is based on this patch and that is the reason I had to create a >> hybrid tree and base my patches on it. If this conflict can be easily >> resolved by whoever >> is doing the merging, then I can resend the 5/5 alone based on stefano's >> tree and >> Ian's idea of pushing 2,3,5/5 through xen tree would work. > > 4/5 needs to be upstream (via Rafael) first though, doesn't it? That's > the keystone here, the rest appears to fall out nicely once that has > gone in. > err, that was not the plan (though what you suggested would also work). Look at thread "Q: Clarification about extra option.." http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-03/msg00267.html The plan was that I would create a new tree by merging Rafael and Stefano's trees. And then rebase my patches on this new tree, send out to the list for review. Konrad meanwhile would pull this new tree+patches into his tree and push it after Rafael & Stefano's trees have gone in. The last I heard, Konrad was stuck on PVonHVM ballooning issue and was planning to pull mine after resolving the issue. shriram > Certainly the conflict above isn't (IMHO) worth worrying about in and of > itself, it will be trivially resolved when Linus does the pull. (doubly > so if the pull request warns him it's coming and says what to do...) > >> > everything else has settled down. >> > >> This "everything else has settled down" phrase has been causing lot of >> delays :P. > > It's unfortunately often the case when a change spans multiple > maintainers. > > Ian. > > > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

©2013 Xen Project, A Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. All Rights Reserved.
Linux Foundation is a registered trademark of The Linux Foundation.
Xen Project is a trademark of The Linux Foundation.