Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Stable candidate? xen: events: do not unmask event channels on resume

[Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07.06.2011 10:48, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 08:44 +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> Resending. I could not see this going to the list, so I subscribed and am 
>> trying
>> again.
> 
> Posts from non-subscribers are moderated, it would have come through at
> some point.
> 
I was not sure how long that would take or whether non-subscribers would just
get dropped to prevent spam. It does not hurt to be subscribed, so discussion
can go quicker.

>> -Stefan
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Stable candidate? xen: events: do not unmask event channels on 
>> resume
>> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 16:46:47 +0200
>> From: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The following patch was reported to solve (at least some in the .32 case) 
>> hangs
>> on migration for 2.6.32 and 2.6.35 based kernels. I am not completely sure 
>> about
>> the 2.6.32 case as some reporters were reporting success after it was 
>> applied,
>> others still had issues[1]. But at least it seemed to improve the situation.
>> Should this get proposed for upstream longterm trees?
>>
>> -Stefan
>>
>> From cf2e26cf8402af6f65bd89611682497db278f309 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> 
> This seems to be 6903591f314b in the upstream tree. Also there was a
> subsequent cleanup in 676dc3cf5bc3 which relies on dc5f219e, which we
> should consider too. I think as a set they make sense for a
> stable/longterm backport so you can have my:
> Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> for forwarding to stable@
> 
> I expect you'll want/need tglx's Ack for the latter two as well.
>
They would be needed when trying to push the whole set, yes. On the other hand,
on a casual glance, these just seem to make some functionality that the first
patch did on the xen side, available in the generic framework.
If there is no issue without the two, my feeling would be, that going with the
single patch for stable/longterm would be better. To me things going there
should have a real functional benefit.
But probably I am overlooking something in the cleanup.

-Stefan

> Ian.
> 
>> From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:30:09 +0000
>> Subject: [PATCH] xen: events: do not unmask event channels on resume
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+source/linux/+bug/681083
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel