From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: [PATCH 00 of 11 v5] NUMA aware credit scheduling Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:07:31 +0200 Message-ID: <1366128451.3037.25.camel@Abyss> References: <1366101875.3037.9.camel@Abyss> <516D6AC802000078000CD9D3@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20845.29477.827997.761798@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4089438511675559213==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20845.29477.827997.761798@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Jackson Cc: "Keir (Xen.org)" , Ian Campbell , George Dunlap , Juergen Gross , "Tim (Xen.org)" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============4089438511675559213== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-3fvXWvi/84loJflTAWNE" --=-3fvXWvi/84loJflTAWNE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On mar, 2013-04-16 at 16:49 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00 of 11 v5] NUMA aware cre= dit scheduling"): > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > - 1 and 2 touch tools/, but don't have a tools maintainer ack yet >=20 > I'm happy for 1 to have my ack provided that Jan's comment on it is > addressed. >=20 I did that already, by replying to his e-mail with an updated patch, since it was a very minor issue, involving only that very one. Of course, I can respin the whole series, if you like it better. > I think 05/11 should explain in a documentation comment what it means > for a domain to have a node affinity. Specifically it's not clear > from the docs there whether it's a hint to the hypervisor, or a hard > requirement, and what semantic restrictions there might be on setting > affinities. >=20 Actually, I tried to do right that in 11/11. I know, we want doc to be in the same changeset of the change itself, but there is not just one specific change that enables the new behavior, it's something resulting from the joint work of 3/11, 4/11, 5/11 6/11 7/11 and 9/11, so it was unclear to me where to update the doc, and that's why I opted for a new patch, at the end of the series. Or was it something different from what I have there that you had in mind? Thanks and Regards, Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) --=-3fvXWvi/84loJflTAWNE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAlFtd0MACgkQk4XaBE3IOsR/9wCgghy5Ym4eEPbP4ZSn+RvjT321 kjQAn2Z4d253Gab+v6DrNlwrdpr+quTQ =amfZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-3fvXWvi/84loJflTAWNE-- --===============4089438511675559213== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============4089438511675559213==--