Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 14689: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 14689: regressions 
- FAIL"):
> So this is what really should not have happened past the
> intended-to-be-final RC.

Sorry about that.

> How important is this change really to the 4.1 tree? I'd obviously
> favor outright reverting it at this point (my understanding being
> that the removal of the call to xs_rm() from libxl__device_destroy()
> affected more than just tapdisk backends, which I guess was
> assumed to be the case because of its neighboring with the call
> to libxl__device_destroy_tapdisk()). Would that get the tree into
> worse state that 4.1.3 was in?

I think reverting it right now is the right thing to do and I will do
that.  We can then think about what to do next.

Ian.

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