Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane. [and 1 more messages]

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 04/14/16 8:12 PM >>>
>Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:
>> And btw., considering that Konrad has already posted a revert patch,
>> and I have ack-ed that one, this could now go in right away (and the
>> discussion could either be settled or start over).
>
>I don't see that patch you describe in my inbox, but maybe I have
>missed it.

Patches 1 and 2 of the most recent v8.1 series.

>If that reversion is proposed, following a request for a 2nd/3rd
>opinion from me and George, and given the discussion so far, I think
>that patch ought to have been CC'd to me and George.
>
>I don't think it would be appropriate to commit a revert except as
>part of a series which introduces an replacement way of providing the
>needed functionality - at least, enough functionality that in practice
>a plausibly long build-id can be retrieved.

For one, the revert wouldn't revert that functionality, as that didn't even go
in yet.

>If you want the original reverted, I think it is up to you, Jan, to
>provide (or procure) such a replacement.

And with that (albeit not just because of it not being in yet at all), I don't 
see
why this would be the case. I think there's some general disagreement here,
which with the hackathon around the corner we probably should just get
sorted out in person there.

Jan


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