[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V11 0/18] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
- To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:20:28 +0530
- Cc: jeremy@xxxxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, drjones@xxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, agraf@xxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, habanero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ouyang@xxxxxxxxxxx, avi.kivity@xxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, chegu_vinod@xxxxxx, mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, srivatsa.vaddagiri@xxxxxxxxx, attilio.rao@xxxxxxxxxx, pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 02:44:37 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 08/06/2013 04:20 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
So, having read through the entire thread I *think* this is what the
status of this patchset is:
1. Patches 1-17 are noncontroversial, Raghavendra is going to send an
update split into two patchsets;
Yes. Only one patch would be common to both host and guest which will
be sent as a separate patch.
I 'll rebase first patchset to -next and second patchset to kvm tree as
needed.
2. There are at least two versions of patch 15; I think the "PATCH
RESEND RFC" is the right one.
True.
3. Patch 18 is controversial but there are performance numbers; these
should be integrated in the patch description.
Current plan is to drop for patch 18 for now.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
