Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:12:05 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        devel@linuxdriverproject.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Jork Loeser <Jork.Loeser@microsoft.com>,
        Simon Xiao <sixiao@microsoft.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] Hyper-V: paravirtualized remote TLB flushing and
 hypercall improvements
Message-ID: <20170810151205.mtvhkrgyjnacsmef@gmail.com>
References: <20170802160921.21791-1-vkuznets@redhat.com>
 <87k22btz0v.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87k22btz0v.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1297
Lines: 32


* Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:

> Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > Changes since v9:
> > - Rebase to 4.13-rc3.
> > - Drop PATCH1 as it was already taken by Greg to char-misc tree. There're no
> >   functional dependencies on this patch so the series can go through a different tree
> >   (and it actually belongs to x86 if I got Ingo's comment right).
> > - Add in missing void return type in PATCH1 [Colin King, Ingo Molnar, Greg KH]
> > - A few minor fixes in what is now PATCH7: add pr_fmt, tiny style fix in
> >   hyperv_flush_tlb_others() [Andy Shevchenko]
> > - Fix "error: implicit declaration of function 'virt_to_phys'" in PATCH2
> >   reported by kbuild test robot (#include <asm/io.h>)
> > - Add Steven's 'Reviewed-by:' to PATCH9.
> 
> Thomas, Ingo, Greg,
> 
> do I get it right that the intention is to take this series through x86
> tree? (See: https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2561174.html) If so,
> is there anything else I need to do to get it accepted?

Yeah, the patches are arch/x86/-heavy, so that would be the ideal workflow - it's 
just that the series coincided with x86 maintainers vacation time!

I've picked them up now into tip:x86/platform (they look good to me) and will push 
them out after some testing.

Thanks,

	Ingo