From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: Please ack XENMEM_claim_pages hypercall? Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:46:05 +0000 Message-ID: <50B4D22D.20809@eu.citrix.com> References: <38a09df7-3d82-403f-9153-9a151b220a41@default> <50B48C8A02000078000AB851@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1354012308.5830.175.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4e524dad-b67a-4115-b0fd-72f9b372abf1@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4e524dad-b67a-4115-b0fd-72f9b372abf1@default> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Dan Magenheimer Cc: "Keir (Xen.org)" , Ian Campbell , Konrad Wilk , "Tim (Xen.org)" , Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Jan Beulich , Zhigang Wang List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 27/11/12 14:38, Dan Magenheimer wrote: > Now, with that in mind, I still haven't heard any objections > other than insufficient testing (fair, but also very true of > most patches accepted into xen-unstable months before a release); > and "your toolstack should use the 'Citrix paradigm'" (and > I believe I have adequately explained why we cannot). Are > there other valid objections? Yes -- the main one being, you have not convinced anyone it's necessary yet. Maybe you should ask someone else to take up this cause -- we seem to have major problems communicating with you. -George