Re: blktap, qdisk, xl cd-eject, and xencommons

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>]

On 04/30/2013 12:54 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:56:35AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> Well we didn't have that before 4.3, and it didn't seem to be a major
>                                    4.2 maybe?
>> problem; I think people just knew to make sure blktap got modprobed
>> themselves.  So I wouldn't personally consider this a blocker -- but I'm
>> still open to other ideas.
>>
>> In any case, it would certainly be *better* if we can have libxl attempt
>> a modprobe, so if we can get it in before the release, I think that
>> would be a good thing.
>>
>
> So now the libxl infrastructure is no longer a blocker, good. Then how
> can we justify it if we need it to go in at this stage? We're
> approaching RC1 next week, what is the suitable policy for this
> infrastructure?

Well most of those things are "guidelines" rather than rules. :-)  Not 
everything fits neatly into the packages.  In this case, this is a mild 
regression from 4.2 -- so it could be sort of considered a "bug fix".

OTOH, if Jan were willing, the lowest disturbance thing to do might be 
to leave the modprobe in, and promise to address the issue first thing 
in the 4.4.  (In that case I'd owe Jan a big apology, as it was I that 
promised to sort it out for 4.3.)

  -George