Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

[Glauber de Oliveira Costa]

On Jan 18, 2008 8:02 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y.
> > > Which means you did not even build-test it on 32-bit, let alone boot
> > > test it...
> >
> > Why are we rushing so much to do 64-bit paravirt that we are breaking
> > working configurations?  If the developement is going to be this
> > chaotic, it should be done and tested out of tree until it can
> > stabilize.
>
> what you see is a open feedback cycle conducted on lkml. People send
> patches for arch/x86, and we tell them if it breaks something. The bug
> was found before i pushed out the x86.git devel tree (and the fix is
> below - but this shouldnt matter to you because the bug never hit a
> public x86.git tree).
>
>         Ingo
>
Other than this, it seems to build and boot fine.

Do you want me to resend ?
-- 
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net

"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/