This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] PATCH: Fix name uniqueness check

To: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@xxxxxxxxxx>, Masaki Kanno <kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] PATCH: Fix name uniqueness check
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:36:17 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:32:14 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070927204023.GQ17433@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcgD7PzjO6iaOW/gEdySqAAWy6hiGQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] PATCH: Fix name uniqueness check
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
On 27/9/07 21:40, "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Unstable, but not 3.1.1, also has
>>   http://xenbits2.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg?rev/207582c8d88b
>> I did a little testing on a 3.1-based system that includes the above c/s
>> and your reversion of c/s 15124.  No problems noticed testing create,
>> new, reboot, save, restore.  Did not test migration or hvm guests.  So
>> perhaps reverting 15124 is fine for unstable but not sure about 3.1.1
>> *without* c/s 15642.
> Yep, I just tested 3.1.1 with 15124 reverted, and 15642 applied and it copes
> with the use cases I have. So I'd reckon on making those two changes to the
> 3.1-testing tree would be sufficient.

Is this still wanted? Masaki Kanno's response seems to indicate there are
still issues.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list