[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1
- To: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:01:12 +0200
- Cc: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 05:01:54 +0000
- Domainkey-signature: s=s1536a; d=ts.fujitsu.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-SBRSScore:X-IronPort-AV:Received:X-IronPort-AV: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization: User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=kGxBQcHry2BBgZM4VVsJSBbsumbGAhzSFFAObyKHN/kZdZknU3b96UeS +0o23fPNpytkxs/SAcitzs5WTE31xX4KeYX4Dk9/PiujtmiwXtJCzzzjt emkgKtyJlArvXPIfn2c1FxlZhGEJ3nEkjrubOUNLQ+6EJURFIR0aPYie9 jcVgBoSfqRKVDTil7kGgEBy14amzVVoH8cqlpbDrXM1De0cFqGIR77klM ApGhLZO6RYODhnhxC89fiuCoT72Kv;
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
Am 20.07.2012 21:36, schrieb George Dunlap:
On 19/07/12 22:54, Juergen Gross wrote:
Am 19.07.2012 17:11, schrieb Ian Jackson:
Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Backport requests of cs
23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1"):
On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross"<juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and
4.1. The backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are
willing to take them.
Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at
least an Ack
from) a tools maintainer.
Thanks for replying Keir, but I'm rather queasy about this.
These patches have not been in any released version of Xen and are
fairly substantial. I would say that we should not backport anything
that isn't a critical bugfix which hasn't been sitting in a released
version of Xen for a while; and a new feature ought to be considered
very carefully.
Now maybe the unfortunately extended 4.2 release cycle may mean we
should relax this rule but I'd prefer to see a clear justification for
why this is important to retrofit to 4.1.
Live migration is a main high-availability feature of our next release.
A performance degradation of 10% and more will not be easily accepted for
a system which is expected to be up 24/7.
Is there a reason you can't just do as XenServer and XCP have done, and
have them in a local patch queue?
That's plan C. :-)
We are using SLES as base, so plan B is asking Suse...
Obviously it's better to keep a local patch queue as short as possible,
but it doesn't seem like you're really going to be that crippled if we
wait to check them in.
Correct.
I had to try. :-)
Juergen
--
Juergen Gross Principal Developer Operating Systems
PDG ES&S SWE OS6 Telephone: +49 (0) 89 3222 2967
Fujitsu Technology Solutions e-mail: juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Domagkstr. 28 Internet: ts.fujitsu.com
D-80807 Muenchen Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
