From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751463AbbIGFLA (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2015 01:11:00 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:52484 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750879AbbIGFK6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2015 01:10:58 -0400 Message-ID: <1441602655.12945.5.camel@ellerman.id.au> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] perf,kvm/powerpc: Add kvm_perf.h for powerpc From: Michael Ellerman To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Hemant Kumar , maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, warrier@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, scottwood@freescale.com, sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, mingo@kernel.org Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 15:10:55 +1000 In-Reply-To: <20150904205145.GB3475@kernel.org> References: <1441003681-10259-1-git-send-email-hemant@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150831201300.GG4423@kernel.org> <55E54A4F.6090205@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150904205145.GB3475@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 17:51 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:18:47PM +0530, Hemant Kumar escreveu: > > >Should I try to process the 5 together, applying thest two first? > > > Yes, this patchset needs to be applied before applying the other patchset, > > since there is a direct dependency on these two for the tooling part to > > work. > > > >I see there are no acks from powerpc arch maintainers, how should we > > >proceed here? If there are no problems with the arch bits, and if it is > > >just to enable the tooling part, again, should I process the 5 as just > > >one series? > > > The reason to split the earlier patchset into two was to separate the > > tooling/perf/ and arch/powerpc/ side patches, as asked by Michael.. > > > Here is the link to that discussion : > > http://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg86916.html > > > If Michael is ok with the patches, you can process all the 5 patches > > together. Michael? > > Michael? I'm not particularly happy with it. Can we at least remove this hunk from the uapi header: +/* This is to shut the compiler up */ +#define KVM_ENTRY_TRACE "" +#define KVM_EXIT_TRACE "" +#define KVM_EXIT_REASON "" cheers