From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1 Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:36:22 -0700 Message-ID: <5009B336.8000905@eu.citrix.com> References: <4FFFBB55.60401@ts.fujitsu.com> <20488.9122.701811.248760@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <5008F29F.4010903@ts.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5008F29F.4010903@ts.fujitsu.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: Juergen Gross Cc: Keir Fraser , Ian Jackson , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 19/07/12 22:54, Juergen Gross wrote: > Am 19.07.2012 17:11, schrieb Ian Jackson: >> Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1"): >>> On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross" wrote: >>>> I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and >>>> 4.1. The backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are >>>> willing to take them. >>> Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at least an Ack >>> from) a tools maintainer. >> Thanks for replying Keir, but I'm rather queasy about this. >> >> These patches have not been in any released version of Xen and are >> fairly substantial. I would say that we should not backport anything >> that isn't a critical bugfix which hasn't been sitting in a released >> version of Xen for a while; and a new feature ought to be considered >> very carefully. >> >> Now maybe the unfortunately extended 4.2 release cycle may mean we >> should relax this rule but I'd prefer to see a clear justification for >> why this is important to retrofit to 4.1. > Live migration is a main high-availability feature of our next release. > > A performance degradation of 10% and more will not be easily accepted for > a system which is expected to be up 24/7. Is there a reason you can't just do as XenServer and XCP have done, and have them in a local patch queue? Obviously it's better to keep a local patch queue as short as possible, but it doesn't seem like you're really going to be that crippled if we wait to check them in. -George