LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com
Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables.
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 02:51:33 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080204025133.511ac3e2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1202121409.31801.7.camel@localhost>

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:36:49 +0100 Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 21:53 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 16:37:00 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Why dropping add-mm-argument-to-pte-pmd-pud-pgd_free.patch though ?
> > 
> > I dropped the whole series.
>
> Sniff .. my patches .. ;-)

Well yes.  People who merge via -mm continue to be at a disadvantage
because they're forced to go behind all the subsystem trees.  Plus I (and
apparently I alone) will skip patches when the kernel is
more-than-usually-wrecked and will slow things down for stabilisation as
we're heading into the merge window.

Plus: I started to prepare 2.6.24-mm1 on Friday morning, worked all weekend
and got it out Sunday evening after having committed forty to fifty fixes
and having dropped numerous patches.

If this situation (conflicting changes and poor code quality) persists into
the 2.6.25 cycle I will toss all the subsystem trees out of -mm, shall
rebase -mm on mainline and shall merge first.  I had decided today to
actually just do this, but on reflection I'll give it just one more shot.

It's remarkable how many bugs are in current mainline which weren't in
2.6.24-rc8-mm1.  What could have caused this?

> > Look: I can't fix *everyone's* stuff.  This was a consequence of ongoing
> > unbounded churn in the x86 tree.  If we can find a way of preventing those
> > guys (and everyone else) from trashing everyone else's stuff then we'd have
> > much smoother sailing.
> 
> Understood. That is where I jump in and regenerate my patches on the
> latest available level. That the patches did hold up for some months in
> -mm now without really breaking anything is an indication that we can
> push them upstream now, isn't ? That would make the patch problem go
> away and I could queue my s390 specific page table rework. Our KVM
> people keep asking about it.

yes, against 2.6.24-mm1 would be good, thanks.  I really don't know what
went wrong in i386 but I ended up getting all grumpy at the macro mess
we've made in all the pagetable handling.  Please do take a look at
improving that.


(goes back to bisecting)

  reply	other threads:[~2008-02-04 10:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-11-12 14:30 [patch 0/3] page table changes schwidefsky
2007-11-12 14:30 ` [patch 1/3] add mm argument to pte/pmd/pud/pgd_free schwidefsky
2007-11-12 14:30 ` [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables schwidefsky
2008-01-02 20:44   ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-01-02 21:24     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2008-01-02 21:28       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-01-03 13:12     ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-03 14:01       ` Boaz Harrosh
2008-02-01 23:15   ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-03  5:37     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-02-03  5:53       ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-03  6:46         ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-04 10:36         ` Martin Schwidefsky
2008-02-04 10:51           ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2008-02-04 11:02             ` Russell King
2008-02-04 11:14               ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-05 14:39             ` Martin Schwidefsky
2008-02-05 18:46               ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-06  9:06                 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2008-02-06  9:09                   ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-06  9:15                     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-06 15:50                     ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-11-12 14:30 ` [patch 3/3] arch_rebalance_pgtables call schwidefsky
2007-11-13 12:33   ` Nick Piggin
2007-11-14  9:26     ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-11-14 10:06       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-11-14 11:49         ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-11-14 22:07           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-11-15 17:13             ` Martin Schwidefsky

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080204025133.511ac3e2.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
    --subject='Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables.' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).