Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: 
[Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring 
XENVER_ but sane."):
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:33:33AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Yet nothing has happened, so I think the patch needs to be
> > reverted (at least for the time being).
> 
> Wait what?!

I'm sorry that I didn't understand that we were being asked for a
second opinion about this disagreement.  I'm afriad that the original
email wasn't really comprehensible to me as a summary of the
disagreement.

Would someone please summarise ?  Especially, since Jan is AFAICT
saying that this new hypercall is not needed, it would be helpful to
know why those who think it is needed want it.

In the meantime I think it would be best to avoid churn by leaving the
patch in tree for now.  I promise that I won't let those "facts on the
ground" influence my views about whether this hypercall is needed.

Thanks,
Ian.

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