Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760864AbYG3KEX (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:04:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753315AbYG3KEO (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:04:14 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:40345 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752648AbYG3KEN (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:04:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:03:26 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Suresh Siddha , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "arjan@linux.intel.com" , "roland@redhat.com" , "drepper@redhat.com" , "mikpe@it.uu.se" , "chrisw@sous-sol.org" , "andi@firstfloor.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] x86, xsave: xsave/xrstor support Message-ID: <20080730100326.GA9683@elte.hu> References: <20080729172917.185593000@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <488FA318.3040905@zytor.com> <20080729232951.GB11223@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <488FAB2B.7050405@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <488FAB2B.7050405@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1220 Lines: 30 * H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> hpa, these patches just apply fine to tip/master. Can you please >> arrange the tip/x86/xsave tree accordingly? or do I need to do >> something else to smooth this process? > > This is awkward, since that means this is "derived topic". Most of > the changes are orthogonal and relatively trivial to fix up at merge > time, so I would prefer to keep them separate. Well, in this case the conflicts seem to be quite heavy, so i'd suggest to use the method we have used for x86/x2apic and for xen-64bit: Merge the affected topics into tip/x86/core. Then merge x86/core into x86/xsave, and put the xsave patches ontop of that base. This way x86/xsave is a 'derived' topic and optional until it's proven, but one that is still mergable once all the dependent topics go upstream. We'd only have to rebase it in the (unlikely) event of there being some major problem with any of the topics merged into x86/core. ok? Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/