We're using mercurial patchqueues. Mercurial version 0.9.1. I've just cloned and applied the patch queue from scratch with no problems.
-- Keir On 10/9/07 13:28, "Ben Guthro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also - what tool are you using to apply these patches? > > mercurial queues seem to be incompatible with some of the non utf-8 > characters in some of the patches: > > applying 15075-5efb46bfbcac > applying 15076-9ec165fa8128 > applying 15077-711bfe07999b > applying 15078-6145e5508d6b > abort: decoding near 'Ingard Mev�g <ingard': 'utf8' codec can't decode > bytes in position 186-188: invalid data! > transaction abort! > rollback completed > > Ben Guthro wrote: >> Keir Fraser wrote: >>> On 10/9/07 13:03, "Ben Guthro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> 15185-1f8fb764f843 >>>> http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg?rev/1f8fb764f843 >>> I'm inclined not to backport this one. >>> >> If I recall - It applied against our 3.1 tree without any >> backporting...we just exported, and applied it. It increased >> performance on Caneland machines greatly. Test results against our 3.1 >> based product below: >> >> <test results> >> At Ben's request, I did a quick evaluation of the APIC TPR patch for >> Caneland. >> I used yesterday's build to establish a baseline for booting, running >> SPECjbb2005, and >> netperf on a SMP XP guest. I then repeated the tests with a custom >> kernel. The patch >> showed significant improvement for 2 of the 3 tests I used. Here are >> the results: >> >> Test 20070816 Patch % Improvement >> Boot time - Seconds 62.6 40.5 35% >> SPECjbb2005 OPs/Sec 35216 35686 1% >> TCP XMIT (MBits/sec) 70.2 309.5 341% >> TCP RCV (MBits/Sec) 122.3 423.5 246% >> >> These tests were done on a Caneland, with 4 quad-core sockets and 32GB >> of memory. >> The guest is Windows XP Professional with SP2, 2 CPUs, 2GB memory. >> This afternoon, >> I'll repeat the experiment on a non-Caneland machine to see if there >> are any >> side effects. >> >> </test results> >> >>> The two Linux changesets are not applicable to 3.1. >> Yes, of course...my mistake. I forgot to weed out my "unstable-only" >> patches from the list. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-devel mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > _______________________________________________ Xen-ppc-devel mailing list Xenemail@example.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel