Re: [Xen-devel] Fwd: [OPW PATCH 1/4] tools/xl: Calling _init and _dispose function for libxl types

[Uma Sharma <uma.sharma523@xxxxxxxxx>]

There was no v2 (v2 was not created properly).
Yes, 1/4 was the cover letter. And 4/4 was not correct.

Thank you for applying the patches.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 18:04 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>
> Just getting back to these after the freeze.
>
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Uma Sharma <uma.sharma523@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Should I resend the patches then?
>>
>> On the xen-devel list, always reply at the bottom, like this.  :-)
>>
>> I think normally it wouldn't matter, but since the point of the
>> exercise is to get you familiar with the tools, I'd say yes, why don't
>> you send them again (maybe using the 'v2' tag).
>
> Was there a v2 here? If so I seem to have misplaced it.
>
> As it stands it looks like I have:
> [OPW PATCH 2/4] tools/xl: Call init function for libxl_domain_sched_params
> (AKA <544581bd.847e460a.4ff9.ffffab04@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
> [OPW PATCH 3/4] tools/xl: Call init function for libxl_bitmap
> (AKA <54458271.a28b420a.52e5.ffffae47@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
>
> Both of which are acked by Wei, I have applied them.
>
> I don't seem to have the actual 1/4 patch, or was 1/4 just the cover
> letter?
>
> [OPW PATCH 4/4] tools/xl:Call init and dispose function for libxl_dominfo
> (AKA <544583e4.c8e7420a.6486.ffffb2da@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>) was incorrect, as
> was the followup "tools/xl:Making _dispose function simplicity for
> libxl_dominfo". I think the code in that case is correct as is.
>
> Please let me know if there are any other outstanding patches from the
> OPW application process which I've missed.
>
> Ian.
>



-- 
Regards,
Uma Sharma
http://about.me/umasharma

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