Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V3 2/6]: PVH: use native irq, enable callback, use HVM ring ops, smp, ...

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>]

On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 23:03 +0100, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:44:37 +0100
> Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 01:30 +0100, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> > > PVH: make gdt_frames[]/gdt_ents into a union with {gdtaddr, gdtsz},
> > > PVH only needs to send down gdtaddr and gdtsz. irq.c: PVH uses
> > > native_irq_ops. vcpu hotplug is currently not available for PVH.
> > > events.c: setup callback vector for PVH. smp.c: This pertains to
> > > bringing up smp vcpus. PVH runs in ring 0, so syscalls are native.
> > > Also, the vcpu context is send down via the hcall to be set in the
> > > vmcs. gdtaddr and gdtsz are unionionized as PVH only needs to send
> > > these two to be set in the vmcs. Finally, PVH ring ops uses HVM
> > > paths for xenbus.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/include/asm/xen/interface.h |   11 +++++-
> > >  arch/x86/xen/irq.c                   |    5 ++-
> > >  arch/x86/xen/p2m.c                   |    2 +-
> > >  arch/x86/xen/smp.c                   |   75
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++------------ drivers/xen/cpu_hotplug.c
> > > |    4 +- drivers/xen/events.c                 |    9 ++++-
> > >  drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_client.c   |    3 +-
> > 
> > This patch seems to have been horribly whitespace damaged.
> 
> Hmm.. not sure what happened. Resending. See another email.
> 
> > Have you seen "git send-email" ? It's very useful for avoiding this
> > sort of thing and also takes a lot of the grunt work out of reposting
> > a series.
> 
> > It also chains the patches as replies to the introductory zero-th mail
> > -- which is something I've been meaning to ask you to do for a while.
> > It's useful because it joins the series together in a thread which
> > makes it easier to keep track of in my INBOX.
> 
> I prefer different thread-sets for different version. Otherwise too
> many emails makes much harder to manage and figure. Besides, as
> comments come in, path x of y,  may contain different files/changes in
> a subsequent version.

I meant one thread per posting, not one thread for all all them. Which
seems to be what you are saying you prefer but not what you are doing.

Ian.