Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/7] libxl: get rid of the SEDF scheduler

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/7] libxl: get rid of the 
SEDF scheduler"):
> On 07/06/2015 05:17 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >>> Chenges from v2:
> >>>  - introduce and use ERROR_FEATURE_REMOVED, as requested
> >>>    during review;
> >>>  - mark the SEDF only parameter as deprecated in libxl_types.idl,
> >>>    as requested during review.
> >>
> >> ...given these.  One question:
> >>
> > Really? I'm basically only adding commentary, not changing (or adding,
> > or removing) a single line of code... I mean, the deprecation was
> > de-facto there already, since v1, it just was not stated explicitly
> > anywhere in that particular file.
> > 
> > That's why I didn't think a something like adding this comment would
> > call for removal of the tag.
> > 
> > Anyway, sorry for this. :-)
> 
> Not a big deal of course, and as it happens I wouldn't have minded if
> the patch went in as it is.  But what if I hadn't liked the name of the
> error code?  It looks like I approve of it, which might sway some
> maintainer's view, when in fact I haven't expressed an opinion.
> 
> I probably wouldn't even have bothered saying anything if I hadn't
> already been replying to the e-mail because of the line below. :-)

Also, while public-facing API comments are only comments (only
documentation), they are quite important.

A change like this:

> >>>  - mark the SEDF only parameter as deprecated in libxl_types.idl,
> >>>    as requested during review.

warrants dropping an acked/reviewed-by (unless it was requested or
suggested by the reviewer).

Ian.

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