Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758856AbYG3RIs (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:08:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752718AbYG3RIh (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:08:37 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:34818 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752194AbYG3RIh (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:08:37 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.31,280,1215414000"; d="scan'208";a="366367135" Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:08:36 -0700 From: Suresh Siddha To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Ingo Molnar , "Siddha, Suresh B" , "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: <20080730170833.GD11223@linux-os.sc.intel.com> References: <20080729172917.185593000@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <488FA318.3040905@zytor.com> <20080729232951.GB11223@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <488FAB2B.7050405@zytor.com> <20080730100326.GA9683@elte.hu> <4890976D.70103@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4890976D.70103@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2165 Lines: 57 On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 09:31:41AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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? > > It somewhat concerns me, because one of the conflicts is generated by > collision with x2apic. The rest of them I don't think are too problematic. hpa, confilicts with x2apic branch are very small and related to cpuid bits. commit 04df16d2465cbb59b84c9c57ad865dbbeebadad8 Author: Suresh Siddha Date: Tue Jul 29 10:29:18 2008 -0700 x86, xsave: xsave cpuid feature bits Add xsave CPU feature bits. and commit 32e1d0a0651004f5fe47f85a2a5c725ad579a90c Author: Suresh Siddha Date: Thu Jul 10 11:16:50 2008 -0700 x64, x2apic/intr-remap: cpuid bits for x2apic feature cpuid feature for x2apic. Both of these patches are straight forward, simple and can be moved to x86/core(?) now, if that helps. thanks, suresh -- 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/