On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:24:21PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Reverts a part of an earlier patch. Why isnt this merged into 1 of 12? > > To give zero regression risk to 1/12 when MMU_NOTIFIER=y or =n and the > mmu notifiers aren't registered by GRU or KVM. Keep in mind that the > whole point of my proposed patch ordering from day 0, is to keep as > 1/N, the absolutely minimum change that fully satisfy GRU and KVM > requirements. 4/12 isn't required by GRU/KVM so I keep it in a later > patch. I now moved mmu_notifier_unregister in a later patch too for > the same reason.
We want a full solution and this kind of patching makes the patches difficuilt to review because later patches revert earlier ones. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
