Paravirt-ops next steps
So it's gotten a bit confusing to figure out how we should go about upstreaming the rest of our patches. Our patchkit in the paravirt-ops tree currently applies to 2.6.19-rc4-mm2, but there are a number of conflicts that got resolved when merging into Andi's i386 tree.
What is the best way to sanitize the remaining patches so they smoothly integrate into the appropriate trees? Should we rebase to Andi's tree, resync to -rc5-mm1, or just cross our fingers and fix up rejects as they occur?
Right now I'm working on getting the timer code for VMI fixed up, and it requires several hooks in the timer infrastructure and possibly the APIC infrastructure that has been changed a lot recently by Thomas Gleixner's patches - I don't see any obvious conflicts, and the new code looks better, but it would be comforting to know I am baking changes against the right tree.
Zach
Quoted 10 lines · On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:27:30 -0800 Zachary Amsden <[email protected]> wrote:
So it's gotten a bit confusing to figure out how we should go about upstreaming the rest of our patches. Our patchkit in the paravirt-ops tree currently applies to 2.6.19-rc4-mm2, but there are a number of conflicts that got resolved when merging into Andi's i386 tree.
What is the best way to sanitize the remaining patches so they smoothly integrate into the appropriate trees? Should we rebase to Andi's tree, resync to -rc5-mm1, or just cross our fingers and fix up rejects as they occur?
Quoted 7 lines
Right now I'm working on getting the timer code for VMI fixed up, and it requires several hooks in the timer infrastructure and possibly the APIC infrastructure that has been changed a lot recently by Thomas Gleixner's patches - I don't see any obvious conflicts, and the new code looks better, but it would be comforting to know I am baking changes against the right tree.
It'd be better to develop and test this work on top of Thomas's stuff, as that's what 2.6.20 will doubtless look like. That means working against -mm. Once Thomas's patches are in mainline then the patches will apply to Andi's tree too and I can send them over to him.
That way, the patch-applying-order equals mainstream-merging-order equals chronological-writing-order, which is generally a good thing.
Quoted 8 lines · Andrew Morton
It'd be better to develop and test this work on top of Thomas's stuff, as that's what 2.6.20 will doubtless look like. That means working against -mm. Once Thomas's patches are in mainline then the patches will apply to Andi's tree too and I can send them over to him.
That way, the patch-applying-order equals mainstream-merging-order equals chronological-writing-order, which is generally a good thing.
Sounds sane. Are Thomas's patches in -rc5-mm1? If so, we should rebase paravirt-ops, although I don't want to lose any paravirt patches that you've dropped because they were merged to Andi. Don't know if that is the case, but I did see a bunch of "merged into a subsystem tree" drops from -mm related to paravirt.
Thanks,
Zach
Quoted 11 lines · On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:48:06 -0800 Zachary Amsden <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 8 lines · Andrew Morton
It'd be better to develop and test this work on top of Thomas's stuff, as that's what 2.6.20 will doubtless look like. That means working against -mm. Once Thomas's patches are in mainline then the patches will apply to Andi's tree too and I can send them over to him.
That way, the patch-applying-order equals mainstream-merging-order equals chronological-writing-order, which is generally a good thing.
Sounds sane. Are Thomas's patches in -rc5-mm1?
Yes. That patch series was today dropped and remerged, but it won't have changed much at all.
Quoted 3 lines
If so, we should rebase
paravirt-ops, although I don't want to lose any paravirt patches that you've dropped because they were merged to Andi.
Anything that's in Andi's tree is in -mm too, so when patches are moved mm->andi->mainline nothing will change from your POV.
Quoted 3 lines
Don't know if that is
the case, but I did see a bunch of "merged into a subsystem tree" drops from -mm related to paravirt.
Some of them went mm->andi, others were folded into others and remain in -mm, but the net effect is unaltered from your POV.
Quoted 9 lines · Andrew Morton
Quoted 5 lines
Don't know if that is
the case, but I did see a bunch of "merged into a subsystem tree" drops from -mm related to paravirt.Some of them went
mm->andi, others were folded into others and remain in -mm, but the net effect is unaltered from your POV.
Most excellent. :)
Thanks,
Zach