From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] xen: sched_rt: implement the .free_pdata hook Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:00:14 +0000 Message-ID: <1426597213.32500.75.camel@citrix.com> References: <20150316165642.10279.86684.stgit@Solace.station> <20150316170458.10279.60102.stgit@Solace.station> <1426525838.32500.41.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7955935749911089173==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: "xumengpanda@gmail.com" Cc: "Keir (Xen.org)" , George Dunlap , "JBeulich@suse.com" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============7955935749911089173== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-tHZvGUNoSiedhYfrA7T2" --=-tHZvGUNoSiedhYfrA7T2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 14:23 -0400, Meng Xu wrote: > 2015-03-16 13:10 GMT-04:00 Dario Faggioli : > > We discussed about this issue before, here: > > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-09/msg02765.html > > > > But, as far as it looks, the code we ended up merging still had the > > issue (i.e., it did not have the hook implemented)! > > > > I was working a bit on/off (for family reasons) in that period, so I > > can't really tell how that happened. :-/ > > Not a big deal... this code is marked as experimental for a reason, but > > it probably make sense to double check that anything else similar > > happened, can you do that? > > Sure! I will review that problem, do the double check and let you know > the result! >=20 I've re-tested that scenario myself, and verified it's working before sending this series. :-) What I was suggesting was for you to double check that everything that you have in your local dev repo(s)/branch(es) (either from that time or more recent ones) is actually upstream. In fact, looking at the referenced thread, it looks like this issue shouldn't have been present in the code we have checked-in, and yet, there it was. Regards, Dario --=-tHZvGUNoSiedhYfrA7T2 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 v2 iEYEABECAAYFAlUIJV0ACgkQk4XaBE3IOsT0JgCeL5n8av2LgJNznYnGhS2L3/SC R30AoJJyDSyGmSP1GBqaM4tsXcvvxb0v =TIKy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-tHZvGUNoSiedhYfrA7T2-- --===============7955935749911089173== 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 --===============7955935749911089173==--