Re: [Xen-devel] Requesting for freeze exception for RMRR

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:11 PM
> 
> On 17/07/15 15:01, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:43:05PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 17.07.15 at 15:21, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> The major concern seems to be around the PCI allocation algorithm. Jan
> >>> has different opinion from George. George provided a simple solution
> >>> that will not make things worse than before, while Jan prefers to get
> >>> everything right.
> >>>
> >>> To be fair, the PCI allocation code in a bad state is not really
> >>> contributor's fault.
> >>>
> >>> Jan also pointed out on IRC he thinks the proper logic he asked for is
> >>> not very hard to implement.
> >>>
> >>> Given we either take George's route, which already seems to have a
> >>> patch, or Jan's route, which he thinks shouldn't be too hard to
> >>> implement, I'm inclined to say give this series another week (24th
> >>> deadline still applied). Note that we've been working on this for ages,
> >>> any delay is going to burn up more energy than necessary.
> >>>
> >>> Jan and George, if you disagree with what I say above, please reply.
> >> My main disagreement here continues to be that we're talking
> >> about a bug fix, and hence I don't view this as needing a freeze
> >> exception in the first place (at least not at this point in time). Yes,
> >> the bug fix involves adding code that looks like a new feature, but
> >> that happens with bug fixes.
> >>
> > Fine then. I'm not going to argue feature vs bug fix at this stage.  The
> > final resolution is still the same. Tiejun can continue working on this
> > next week.
> 
> Sorry for being slow in my maintainership role with this series.  (I
> have been busy with the migration v2 side of things).
> 
> I can appreciate Wei's position that, despite this being a bugfix, it
> does exhibit itself as a new feature, and we don't want to be merging a
> new feature beyond the hard feature freeze point.
> 
> The PCI allocation code is in a state, but it was in a similarly bad
> state before.  I agree with Jan's point of the risk that these new
> changes cause a regression in booting guests, although we can mitigate
> that somewhat by testing.
> 
> I feel at this point that we shouldn't block the RMRR bugfix on also
> fixing the PCI allocation algorithm (which was a pre-existing issue).
> 
> Therefore, I recommend that v9 gets respun to v10 to address the current
> comments, and accepted.  Afterwards, the PCI allocation algorithm gets
> worked on as a bugfix activity, to pro actively cater for the risk of
> regression.
> 

Agree with this recommendation. 

Thanks
Kevin

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