From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: Ping: backport proposals Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:31:21 +0100 Message-ID: <5243FEE9.6000700@citrix.com> References: <52208C8C02000078000EFAD7@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <5224D630.1050701@citrix.com> <5231A17D02000078000F2A5B@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <5244078602000078000F69D2@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VP7uv-0006Jn-4l for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:31:25 +0000 In-Reply-To: <5244078602000078000F69D2@nat28.tlf.novell.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: Jan Beulich Cc: xen-devel , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 26/09/13 09:08, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 12.09.13 at 11:11, "Jan Beulich" wrote: >>>>> On 02.09.13 at 20:17, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> As a group - more detail in the console ring in the case of a crash: >>> * 66450c1d1ab3c4480bbba949113b95d1ab6a943a "xen/conring: Write to >>> console ring even if console lock is busted" >>> * cc90bf1894daf9f97791495e2256e7e342e25704 "xen/conring: Clean up >>> writing to the console ring" >> I can see the value of the latter, but the former seems to be pure >> cleanup (which we don't normally backport). >> >>> As a group - improvements around console_force_unlock(): >>> * 44db24103ff1c53a13afebf4d72ad853cee07786 "fix gdbstub build c/s >>> c8177e691f" >>> * 7b9fa702ca323164d6b49e8b639a57f880454a8c "watchdog/crash: Always >>> disable watchdog in console_force_unlock()" >>> * 896934596614b44c20a37263c9decb0b639ef995 "x86/watchdog: Tweak >>> implementation given new common code" >>> * c8177e691f0f611240853326712d43482ec949bf "watchdog: Move watchdog from >>> being x86 specific to common code" >> The real meat here is the second one, and for a backport I'd >> prefer to limit the change to this, even if that means that we'll >> have to add an #ifdef CONFIG_X86 to common code. > I was expecting some sort of response to this from you; silence > meaning to me that you don't care anymore... > > Jan > Apologies - the silence is accidental not deliberate. Having the #ifdef in console_force_unlock() would be a substantially smaller and safer backport with the same effect. Would you like me to do a patch for that or are you ok doing it as part of the backport? ~Andrew