WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Fix restore handling checks

To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Fix restore handling checks
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:10:06 +0200
Cc: Michal Novotny <minovotn@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:10:50 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <19489.63562.359937.534740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C8456846.181EC%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C204D8C.3020303@xxxxxxxxxx> <19488.53018.201328.781032@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C21EDA5.5070100@xxxxxxxxxx> <19489.61339.878715.309115@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C21F034.7060501@xxxxxxxxxx> <19489.62735.769351.371689@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C21F5DC.5050806@xxxxxxxxxx> <19489.63562.359937.534740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-3.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.4
On 06/23/2010 02:04 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Michal Novotny writes ("Re: [PATCH] Fix restore handling checks"):
Are you saying that it's OK for administrators to violate the IDE specs
and do it the way that is should never be done since this way it's not
working on bare-metal systems ? This is the breach and it shouldn't be
done this way so why to allow it? Shouldn't we care the code complies
with the specifications to have it done the right way?

The job of the programmer is to give effect to the wishes of the
users, not to comply with rules from elsewhere.  If the wishes of the
users conflict with rules from elsewhere, including specs, then the
programmer should do what the user wants.

Telling him that he wanted something that cannot be _emulated_ accurately is also a possibility. But we can agree to disagree here and Michal can remove this part of the patch.

Paolo

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