| Message ID | 20090210225945.GA5373@amt.cnet (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Headers | show |
Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > This is better. > > Currently, this code path is posing us big troubles, > and we won't have a decent patch in time. So, temporarily > disable it. > > Applied to master and kvm-updates/2.6.29, thanks.
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:01 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > This is better. > > > > Currently, this code path is posing us big troubles, > > and we won't have a decent patch in time. So, temporarily > > disable it. > > > > > > Applied to master and kvm-updates/2.6.29, thanks. Should we add: Cc: stable@kernel.org Cheers, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:08:23PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:01 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > This is better. > > > > > > Currently, this code path is posing us big troubles, > > > and we won't have a decent patch in time. So, temporarily > > > disable it. > > > > > > > > > > Applied to master and kvm-updates/2.6.29, thanks. > > Should we add: > > Cc: stable@kernel.org I suppose Avi prefers the master->stable route so it can get autotested? But some sort of flag in the commit, like "Stable:Y" would help. Could setup a robot to monitor kvm-commits and maintain kvm-updates/2.6.2current (the queue to Linus), with human intervention when necessary. Then autotest can run continuously on that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:08:23PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > >> On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:01 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >>> >>>> This is better. >>>> >>>> Currently, this code path is posing us big troubles, >>>> and we won't have a decent patch in time. So, temporarily >>>> disable it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Applied to master and kvm-updates/2.6.29, thanks. >>> >> Should we add: >> >> Cc: stable@kernel.org >> > > I suppose Avi prefers the master->stable route so it can get > autotested? > > But some sort of flag in the commit, like "Stable:Y" would > help. Could setup a robot to monitor kvm-commits and maintain > kvm-updates/2.6.2current (the queue to Linus), with human intervention > when necessary. > > Then autotest can run continuously on that. > Does 'Cc: stable' mean -stable picks it up automatically? That doesn't seem right.
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 12:02 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:08:23PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:01 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> > >>> Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > >>> > >>>> This is better. > >>>> > >>>> Currently, this code path is posing us big troubles, > >>>> and we won't have a decent patch in time. So, temporarily > >>>> disable it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Applied to master and kvm-updates/2.6.29, thanks. > >>> > >> Should we add: > >> > >> Cc: stable@kernel.org > >> > > > > I suppose Avi prefers the master->stable route so it can get > > autotested? > > > > But some sort of flag in the commit, like "Stable:Y" would > > help. Could setup a robot to monitor kvm-commits and maintain > > kvm-updates/2.6.2current (the queue to Linus), with human intervention > > when necessary. > > > > Then autotest can run continuously on that. I'm not really following Marcelo here ... > Does 'Cc: stable' mean -stable picks it up automatically? That doesn't > seem right. Yeah, I think if you CC: stable it gets pulled into the stable queue by scripts once linus merges it. Cheers, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Avi Kivity (avi@redhat.com) wrote: > Does 'Cc: stable' mean -stable picks it up automatically? That doesn't > seem right. Yes. If you add "Cc: stable@kernel.org" to the commit message, it will get routed to stable when it's committed upstream (still gets human touch, it's not automatically committed to stable). thanks, -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Chris Wright wrote: > * Avi Kivity (avi@redhat.com) wrote: > >> Does 'Cc: stable' mean -stable picks it up automatically? That doesn't >> seem right. >> > > Yes. If you add "Cc: stable@kernel.org" to the commit message, it will > get routed to stable when it's committed upstream (still gets human > touch, it's not automatically committed to stable). > What about porting the patch? And testing it?
* Avi Kivity (avi@redhat.com) wrote: > Chris Wright wrote: >> * Avi Kivity (avi@redhat.com) wrote: >> >>> Does 'Cc: stable' mean -stable picks it up automatically? That >>> doesn't seem right. >> >> Yes. If you add "Cc: stable@kernel.org" to the commit message, it will >> get routed to stable when it's committed upstream (still gets human >> touch, it's not automatically committed to stable). > > What about porting the patch? And testing it? Porting is done by stable maintainers if it's trivial, push back to developer/subsytem maintainer if it's not. Testing depends again, in most cases the upstream testing is still valid. If not..."please verify" -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Chris Wright wrote: > Porting is done by stable maintainers if it's trivial, push back to > developer/subsytem maintainer if it's not. Testing depends again, in > most cases the upstream testing is still valid. If not..."please > verify" > Warm, fuzzy feeling.
Index: kvm/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c =================================================================== --- kvm.orig/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c +++ kvm/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c @@ -989,7 +989,6 @@ int kvm_dev_ioctl_check_extension(long e case KVM_CAP_MMU_SHADOW_CACHE_CONTROL: case KVM_CAP_SET_TSS_ADDR: case KVM_CAP_EXT_CPUID: - case KVM_CAP_CLOCKSOURCE: case KVM_CAP_PIT: case KVM_CAP_NOP_IO_DELAY: case KVM_CAP_MP_STATE: @@ -1015,6 +1014,9 @@ int kvm_dev_ioctl_check_extension(long e case KVM_CAP_IOMMU: r = iommu_found(); break; + case KVM_CAP_CLOCKSOURCE: + r = boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC); + break; default: r = 0; break;