Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] IOMMU/spinlock: Make the pcidevs_lock a recursive one

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 08.03.16 at 13:39, <quan.xu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On March 08, 2016 8:29pm, <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 19:09 +0800, Quan Xu wrote:
>> > Signed-off-by: Quan Xu <quan.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>
>> > CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> > CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > CC: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>
>> > CC: Aravind Gopalakrishnan <Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@xxxxxxx>
>> > CC: Feng Wu <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > CC: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> I've gone through the code, and it looks fine.
>> 
>> However, when trying to apply the patch, on top of this morning's staging, I 
>> got
>> this:
>> 
> Oh, sorry, it is not against this morning's staging.
> I would try to send out patch against this morning's staging soon. Thanks.

Well, with e.g.

>> [dario@Solace xen.git] $ patch -p1 <
>> \[PATCH_2_2\]_IOMMU_spinlock\:_Make_the_pcidevs_lock_a_recursive_one.
>> mbox
>> patching file xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
>> Hunk #1 succeeded at 472 (offset 45 lines).
>> Hunk #2 succeeded at 497 (offset 45 lines).
>> patching file xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmsi.c
>> Hunk #1 succeeded at 388 with fuzz 1.
>> Hunk #2 succeeded at 446 with fuzz 1 (offset 3 lines).

... this it must have been quite old a tree - this file didn't change
in the last 4 months. I consider it rather unfriendly to post such
a patch without RFC tag, and without stating that it's against a
stale tree. Was the recent v6 of the 5-patch series this way too?
If so, I'm glad I didn't spend time looking at it yet.

Jan


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