[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 4.2 TODO / Release Plan
>>> On 20.06.12 at 17:25, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 11:48 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 14:57 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > >>> On 12.06.12 at 15:00, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > > tools, blockers:
>> > > >
>> > > > * Adjustments needed for qdisk backend to work on non-pvops Linux.
>> > > > "qemu/xendisk: set maximum number of grants to be used" (Jan
>> > >
>> > > Patch was posted and is in upstream qemu, just needs pulling back
>> > > into our two clones.
>> > Thanks. CCing Stefano to be sure he knows that...
>> qemu-upstream-unstable has been updated, Ian is responsible for
> I was about to ping Ian J about this, because there seems to be breakage
> which would be fixed by this (Olaf: "grant table errors with
> qemu-xen-traditional" today) but it looks like these patches weren't
> actually submitted against the traditional tree? Or at least I can't
> find any such thing.
> Does the patch in <4FC770E20200007800087298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> apply
> as is to the trad tree? Has any one tried running it? Is this what Olaf
> tested in the thread referenced above?
Apparently yes, except that the change did get applied to the
wrong function (and hence didn't work).
> That thread also references
> <4FABFCF40200007800082CE0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> as something which
> should be applied to the trad tree too. Has anyone tested that combo?
> I can see how Ian missed this -- it very much looked like those two
> patches were for qemu-upstream only to me (from the subject, cc line etc
I didn't think that I needed to formally submit patches that were
requested to be ported over to -traditional when they already
went into upstream qemu. If I'm wrong with this, then please let
me know and I'll submit both patches asap.
Xen-devel mailing list