Shriram Rajagopalan
2011-Mar-21 03:13 UTC
[Xen-devel] [GIT PULL] (xen) pm-bug-fixes for 2.6.32
Hi Jeremy,
Can you please pull
git://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.
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@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-Mar-21 16:20 UTC
[Xen-devel] Re: [GIT PULL] (xen) pm-bug-fixes for 2.6.32
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? 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@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Shriram Rajagopalan
2011-Mar-21 23:10 UTC
[Xen-devel] Re: [GIT PULL] (xen) pm-bug-fixes for 2.6.32
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>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 towhat 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 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@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Ian Campbell
2011-Mar-22 13:43 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [GIT PULL] (xen) pm-bug-fixes for 2.6.32
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 23:10 +0000, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote:> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> > 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.xI 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. 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). 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@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Shriram Rajagopalan
2011-Mar-22 14:15 UTC
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@citrix.com> 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@goop.org> >> 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@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-Mar-22 16:45 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [GIT PULL] (xen) pm-bug-fixes for 2.6.32
On 03/22/2011 02:15 PM, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote:> On 2011-03-22, at 6:43 AM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> 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@goop.org> >>> 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).I just pulled it into xen/next-2.6.32 since it seems too fiddly properly backport it to plain 2.6.32 and it doesn''t really affect many users (since as I understand it these just fix checkpoints, which have probably been broken for a long time without complaints). J _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel