On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:20:12PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:05 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Test tag works fine here w/wo threadirqs, RT works as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Mike > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > OK I pushed out two new tags > > > > > test1 with just the cleanup reverts > > > > > test2 with a bugfix in this area > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would very much appreciate your testing report on both - > > > > > should be ok but better make sure. > > > > > > > > Ok, once it percolates out I'll do that. > > > > > > for_linus-10-g960bef2a6172 contains a -ENOBUILD merge conflict. > > > > But test2 works fine w/wo threadirqs. > > Oops. This is what one gets by pushing at 2am. I fixed that one up > (still didn't even build as I'm in the middle of a conference). > Also it's actually the reverse test2 is just the revert test1 has > one more bugfix. > > So I'm inclined to push test2 out to linux-next for now, and will > add test1 later if it fares well. > > Mike, your testing is very much appreciated!
Oh wait, I still put the ctx feature patches in there :( Pls ignore, I'll update when I've fixed it up. Sorry about the noise. > -- > MST