Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77945: regressions - FAIL [and 2 more messages]

[Doug Goldstein <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/14/16 11:18 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Doug Goldstein writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77945: 
> regressions - FAIL [and 2 more messages]"):
>> On 1/14/16 10:27 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Is any of this of any use ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ian.
>>> (no less confused after writing this than I was before)
>>
>> The take away I see here is whatever path is taken we just need to be a
>> bit more explicit with what does what or what is called what to avoid
>> potential breakages.
> 
> Heh.  Does this mean that we should expect more or different patches
> from you ?  I see your conversation with Ian Campbell about at least
> one of the osstest patches is ongoing...
> 
> Ian.
> 

So I stand behind the two submitted patches for osstest because I feel
that it makes it more explicit. However, I understand your point that
you would prefer 1 knob and it be the same knob that users use so I'm
willing to do the work necessarily to get the code behaving how you
would prefer but I would hope we make the code more explicit is all.

So basically, if the patches are thumbs downed I'll change.

-- 
Doug Goldstein

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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