Re: [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks

[Raghavendra K T]

On 03/26/2012 07:55 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 12:20 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge<jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
> > This series provides a Xen implementation, but it should be
> > straightforward to add a KVM implementation as well.
>
> Looks like a good baseline on which to build the KVM implementation.  We
> might need some handshake to prevent interference on the host side with
> the PLE code.

Avi, Thanks for reviewing. True, it is sort of equivalent to PLE on non 
PLE machine.

Ingo, Peter,
Can you please let us know if this series can be considered for next 
merge window?
OR do you still have some concerns that needs addressing.

I shall rebase patches to 3.3 and resend. (main difference would be 
UNINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK and jump label changes to use 
static_key_true/false() usage instead of static_branch.)

Thanks,
Raghu

--
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/