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] xen: core dom0 support

To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:57:18 -0800
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:58:04 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20090228083621.GC11425@xxxxxxx>
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: <1235786365-17744-1-git-send-email-jeremy@xxxxxxxx> <20090227212812.26d02f34.akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49A8DF28.4050301@xxxxxxxx> <20090228072055.GC9351@xxxxxxx> <49A8F04D.4090409@xxxxxxxx> <20090228083621.GC11425@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
Ingo Molnar wrote:
This means that the "massive out-of-tree patches which doesn't make anyone happy" argument above is really ... a hiperbole and should be replaced with: "small, unintrusive out-of-tree patch"?

Well at the moment we're in the "doesn't make anybody happy" state. The dom0 changes I have are, I'll admit, non-trivial. I don't think they're unreasonable or particularly intrusive, but they are large enough to be awkward to maintain out of tree. What I'm looking to achieve now is to get enough into the kernel so that the remaining patches are a "small unintrusive out-of-tree patch" (but ultimately I'd like to get everything in).

But I think that's sort of beside the point. Its not like we're talking about something extremely obscure here; these changes do serve a large existing user-base. The (often repeated) kernel policy is "merge it". I'm happy to talk about the specifics of how all this stuff can be made to fit together - and whether the current approach is OK or if something else would be better, but ultimately I think this functionality does belong in mainline.

   J

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