From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH] xencommons: modprobe xenfs if it not be loaded Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:13:12 +0100 Message-ID: <4C1FC7D8.3080101@goop.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Jackson , Yu Zhiguo List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/21/2010 06:28 PM, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 21/06/2010 15:05, "Ian Jackson" wrote: > > >> Jeremy Fitzhardinge writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xencommons: modprobe >> xenfs if it not be loaded"): >> >>> It should just be sufficient to explicitly mount /proc/xen, which will >>> trigger a modprobe if necessary. >>> >> That sounds like a Nak of the patch to me. Unfortunately it has >> already been applied (21641). >> > I can revert it. > I think so. > Should I leave tools patches unapplied for a week, perhaps? > You mean the policy is that if a patch is not interesting enough to draw comment, you'll accept it by default after a week? What about waiting until there are either positive or negative comments, and suggesting the poster ping if the patch is uncommented on after a day or two? J