Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 00/21] x86/xen: untangle PV and PVHVM guest
 support code
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
References: <20170302175357.8222-1-vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <7ce41369-7784-862a-de8d-9cb2ecef83e1@oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 12:59:08 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170302175357.8222-1-vkuznets@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 979
Lines: 27


On 03/02/2017 12:53 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Changes since v1:
> - Patches 1,2 and 3 were split and reordered to avoid adding temporary
>    #ifdefs [Juergen Gross]
> - Juergen's R-b added to what is now patches 14 and 15 (patches 4 and 5
>    in v1). Due to re-ordering there are some tiny diffrences but I opted
>    for keeping the tag.
>
> Some patches are known to produce checkpatch.pl WARNINGS and a couple of
> ERRORs, I fixed a few (mostly in _hvm* code I split) and I refrained from
> fixing the rest to make it easier to review. I think that we may leave PV
> code as it is as sooner or later it will go away.
>
> Original description:
>
> I have a long-standing idea to separate PV and PVHVM code in kernel and
> introduce Kconfig options to make it possible to enable the required
> parts only breaking the current 'all or nothing' approach.

I tried applying this to mainline and it failed at some point. Is there 
a branch i can pull from?

Thanks.
-boris