From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759564AbbA0UNG (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:13:06 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38953 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751020AbbA0UNC (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:13:02 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 21:12:59 +0100 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: David Vrabel Cc: Jan Beulich , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Andy Lutomirski , rostedt@goodmis.org, Masami Hiramatsu , x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] x86/xen: allow privcmd hypercalls to be preempted on 64-bit Message-ID: <20150127201259.GB19988@wotan.suse.de> References: <1422323467-16713-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1422323467-16713-3-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <54C75BD60200007800059BDD@mail.emea.novell.com> <54C76334.2080003@citrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54C76334.2080003@citrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:06:44AM +0000, David Vrabel wrote: > On 27/01/15 08:35, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 27.01.15 at 02:51, wrote: > > > > Even if David told you this would be acceptable, I have to question > > an abstract model of fixing issues on only 64-bit kernels - this may > > be acceptable for distro purposes, but seems hardly the right > > approach for upstream. If 32-bit ones are to become deliberately > > broken, the XEN config option should become dependent on !X86_32. > > I'd rather have something omitted (keeping the current behaviour) than > something that has not been tested at all. > > Obviously it would be preferable to to fix both 32-bit and 64-bit x86 > (and ARM as well) but I'm not going to block an important bug fix for > the majority use case (64-bit x86). The hunk for 32-bit should indeed only go in once we get a Tested-by. Please let me know if there is anything else needed for this patch. Luis