Re: [Xen-devel] Ping: backport proposals

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 26/09/13 09:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 12.09.13 at 11:11, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 02.09.13 at 20:17, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> As a group - more detail in the console ring in the case of a crash:
>>> * 66450c1d1ab3c4480bbba949113b95d1ab6a943a "xen/conring: Write to
>>> console ring even if console lock is busted"
>>> * cc90bf1894daf9f97791495e2256e7e342e25704 "xen/conring: Clean up
>>> writing to the console ring"
>> I can see the value of the latter, but the former seems to be pure
>> cleanup (which we don't normally backport).
>>
>>> As a group - improvements around console_force_unlock():
>>> * 44db24103ff1c53a13afebf4d72ad853cee07786 "fix gdbstub build c/s
>>> c8177e691f"
>>> * 7b9fa702ca323164d6b49e8b639a57f880454a8c "watchdog/crash: Always
>>> disable watchdog in console_force_unlock()"
>>> * 896934596614b44c20a37263c9decb0b639ef995 "x86/watchdog: Tweak
>>> implementation given new common code"
>>> * c8177e691f0f611240853326712d43482ec949bf "watchdog: Move watchdog from
>>> being x86 specific to common code"
>> The real meat here is the second one, and for a backport I'd
>> prefer to limit the change to this, even if that means that we'll
>> have to add an #ifdef CONFIG_X86 to common code.
> I was expecting some sort of response to this from you; silence
> meaning to me that you don't care anymore...
>
> Jan
>

Apologies - the silence is accidental not deliberate.

Having the #ifdef in console_force_unlock() would be a substantially
smaller and safer backport with the same effect.

Would you like me to do a patch for that or are you ok doing it as part
of the backport?

~Andrew


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