Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fix to libxl migration v2 issue blocking OSSTest

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 13:49 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:11:28AM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 20/07/15 10:56, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 05:51:14PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > > And three improvements to debugging.
> > > > 
> > > > Note that there is still a bug in libxl__toolstack_save() which
> > > > valgrind identified, but I do not wish to block this bugfix on 
> > > > that
> > > > 
> > > > Andrew Cooper (4):
> > > >   tools/libxc: Identify the path of the kernel image which 
> > > > cannot be
> > > >     found
> > > >   tools/libxl: Log the subject fd in datacopier messages
> > > >   tools/libxl: Identify copywhat in stream v2 datacopiers
> > > I think all three patches should wait until next development 
> > > window
> > > opens unless we have nothing else in our queue (which doesn't 
> > > seem to be
> > > the case at the moment).
> > 
> > You mean delay until 4.7? I disagree.  Without these fixes, 
> > debugging
> > issues is substantially harder than they need to be.
> > 
> > They literally are only adding extra information into existing 
> > error
> > messages.
> > 
> 
> Well I am expecting two to three big series getting applied soon, any
> changes that gets applied now has the chance of forcing those series 
> to
> be rebased.

Wei and I discussed this IRL, the concern was the outstanding colopre
patches.

However I did a test apply on top of 	
https://github.com/macrosheep/xen.git#colo/colo-v9 (the latest colopre)
and there were no rejects due to the remus refactoring.

There were rejects because I already applied 4/4 on Friday, i.e. they
were the inverse of what I fixed up then.

So given the lack of interaction with colopre Wei gave me permission to
go ahead, so I have applied patches 1..3.

4 was applied already, of course.

Ian.