Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3] xen/arm: enable PV control for ARM

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:09:35PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > [Adding Catalin to Cc]
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:57:34AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > Enable power management from the toolstack for ARM guest.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > >     Changes in v3:
> > > >         - Fix condition to compile cpu_hotplug.o
> > > >     Changes in v2:
> > > >         - Don't compile xen/cpu_hotplug.o with ARM64
> > > 
> > > My arm64 cpu hotplug series is going to be dependent on not compiling
> > > xen/cpu_hotplug.o. Currently I'm not able to compile an arm64 kernel
> > > with my patches and Xen support.
> > > 
> > > How do you intend to push this? I'd like to ensure my cpu hotplug series
> > > is able to go in for the next merge window.
> > 
> > This patch does exactly that: it makes sure cpu_hotplug is not compiled
> > on ARM64.
> 
> Sorry, what I meant was that my series is going to be entirely dependent
> on this patch or it'll break bisection. That'll make merging things a
> little painful as I'll need a stable branch with this patch to base my
> series upon.
> 
> Another option would be to split this patch into two parts, one enabling
> power management and one fixing things up for HOTPLUG_CPU on arm64. That
> way I could take the arm64 HOTPLUG_CPU fix in my series adding arm64
> HOTPLUG_CPU support.
> 
> Would that be acceptable? Have I missed something?

As I am very sensitive to painful merging situations, I think we could
split the patch in two and send upstream the fix (not compiling
cpu_hotplug.o on ARM64) in 3.11-rc2 or rc3.  Konrad, what do you think?

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel