Re: Not really merged? Re: [merged]x86-paravirt-pte-updates-in-kunmap_atomic-need-to-be-synchronous-regardless-of-lazy_mmu-mode.patchremoved from -mm tree

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Fri Oct 28 2011 - 03:10:24 EST

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:24:50 -0400
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:51:48PM -0700, akpm@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > The patch titled
> > > Subject: x86/paravirt: PTE updates in k(un)map_atomic need to be synchronous, regardless of lazy_mmu mode
> > > has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
> > > x86-paravirt-pte-updates-in-kunmap_atomic-need-to-be-synchronous-regardless-of-lazy_mmu-mode.patch
> > >
> > > This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
> >
> > Hey Andrew,
> >
> > I am actually not seeing this in mainline? Was it accidently dropped out of your tree?
> hm, well spotted. I'm not sure what happened here - possibly the
> patch was merged into an x86 tree (and hence linux-next) but later
> got lost. Or possibly not, and I just screwed up.

No, a patch with the -i 'paravirt.*lazy' pattern never touched -tip,
even temporarily.

Could it be that someone else (say the Xen guys) picked it up, it
went into linux-next, you thought it's applied - but then they
dropped it?

Do we have a full log of all linux-next patches?

> Either way, it's a pretty important patch - we marked it for
> -stable backporting.


But IMO it's at least as important to figure out what went wrong. I
somehow doubt it that you spuriously dropped it - that someone else
messes up has a far higher likelihood.

> > If that is the case I can convience you to put it back in or can
> > I drive it to Linus with your Ack-ed by?
> I resurrected my copy and shall send it along to the x86 guys soon.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at