Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00 of 11 v5] NUMA aware credit scheduling

[Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 16/04/2013 14:14, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>> On 16.04.13 at 14:16, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Dario Faggioli
>> <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On gio, 2013-04-11 at 13:41 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> Keir,
>>>> 
>>> Ping?
>> 
>> Given the state we are in the release cycle, and the importance of
>> this patch, and the relative simplicity of the changes in Xen outside
>> of the scheduler:
>> 
>> Tim and Jan, would one of you be willing to use an "Apply unless Keir
>> objects" policy?
> 
> Going through patches 1...5 again,
> 
> - 1 and 2 touch tools/, but don't have a tools maintainer ack yet
> - 1 touches the public interface (even if only the one affecting
>   the tools)
> - 1's hypervisor changes look mostly mechanical, but it's not like
>   this changes just a handful of lines
> - 2's hypervisor changes look like I could agree to such a one-off
>   policy
> - 3 and 4 are only/mostly scheduler changes, and the little bit of
>   4 that isn't I would also be fine with the "adjusted" policy
> - 5 has a public interface change again

I had a look through them this afternoon and there was nothing contentious
there in my opinion. The non-scheduler and public interface changes were all
good.

So you can have my:
Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>

For patches 1...5.

 -- Keir

> So for the whole 1...5 I wouldn't want to override the policy in
> the way you suggest. Whether we want to change that policy
> going forward, or nominate a second "everything-else"
> maintainer is a separate thing.
> 
> Jan
> 



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