Re: Q: Clarification about extra option ..Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] pvops: Make suspend work when CONFIG_SUSPEND=n

[Shriram Rajagopalan <rshriram@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > The only issue is that I cannot completely "test" these two patches
> > against Rafael's tree
> >  - I have verified that the kernel config file generated is as expected.
> >  - I cannot verify any other xen save/restore functionality as my xen
> >    suspend freeze-thaw patches dont apply cleanly on Rafael's tree
> >   (it does not have xen suspend refactoring patches
> >   ceb180294790c8a6a437533488616f6b591b49d0, that my patches depend on.
> >   They are present only in Stefano's tree).
>
> In that case, I'm afraid, it's better to wait until both trees are merged
> and push your patches at that time.

I agree even if it probably means loosing the next merge window.

I believe the original intention of the freeze-thaw patches was to fix the bug that caused
Guest VM hangs, while taking a checkpoint. 

Anyway, is there any chance of pushing these patches into the pvops tree atleast?

I can rebase them to pvops. 

shriram

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