From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754324Ab3BQHbs (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2013 02:31:48 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:12779 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752522Ab3BQHbr convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2013 02:31:47 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,682,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="263684463" From: "Liu, Jinsong" To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Stephen Rothwell , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk CC: "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" Subject: RE: linux-next: build failure after merge of the xen-two tree Thread-Topic: linux-next: build failure after merge of the xen-two tree Thread-Index: AQHODIHETyBHFMmDoE2LH83uWllZQ5h9p5rA Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 07:31:37 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20130215154551.d11e9d376d30d32b9673e6cc@canb.auug.org.au> <2185970.g9YrD945My@vostro.rjw.lan> <20130216015200.1e58bec1aff05592ac2ae98f@canb.auug.org.au> <11850955.SHqxVBsJqI@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <11850955.SHqxVBsJqI@vostro.rjw.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, February 16, 2013 01:52:00 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Rafael, > > Hi, > >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:53:34 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" >> wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:50:14 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:26:24 -0500 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. I keep on forgetting - but would it be OK for me to >>>>> take this patch in my tree? Or should I not since this is a new >>>>> functionality that Rafael is going to introduce in v3.9? >>>> >>>> It is an API change in the pm tree that is not yet in Linus' tree. >>>> >>>>> And if so, perhaps I should tack it on in my tree, once Rafael >>>>> does a git pull to Linus? Or just point Linus to this git commit? >>>> >>>> You should point Linus at this patch if the pm tree is merged >>>> first, or >>>> Rafael should do the same if the reverse happens. >>> >>> Alternatively, Konrad can pull the acpi-scan branch containing the >>> changes in question from my tree into his tree and rebase the new >>> material on top of that. >> >> Or pull the acpi-scan branch into his tree and use my conflict >> resolution in the resulting merge thus requiring no rebasing. >> However, Linus likes to see such interactions, so it can be left up >> to when the latter of the two tress is merged by Linus. > > Well, I'm afraid this won't be sufficient this time, because of this > commit in my tree (which is not on the acpi-scan branch): > > commit 3757b94802fb65d8f696597a74053cf21738da0b > Author: Rafael J. Wysocki > Date: Wed Feb 13 14:36:47 2013 +0100 > > ACPI / hotplug: Fix concurrency issues and memory leaks > > after which acpi_bus_scan() and acpi_bus_trim() have to be run under > acpi_scan_lock (new in my tree as well). Yes, we noticed that and only need minor updates at xen side, will send out 2 xen patches later accordingly, for cleanup and adding lock. Thanks, Jinsong > > Moreover, I think that the introduction of ACPI-based CPU hotplug > into Xen and this point would be premature, because we need to rework > the original ACPI-based CPU hotplug and quite frankly it shouldn't > call acpi_bus_scan() directly at all. > > Konrad? > > Thanks, > Rafael