From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 0/9] Xen: extend kexec hypercall for use with pv-ops kernels Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:27:20 +0000 Message-ID: <5284B398.1000202@citrix.com> References: <20131010154538.GA22446@router-fw-old.local.net-space.pl> <5256D75B.5090504@citrix.com> <20131010212433.GX3626@debian70-amd64.local.net-space.pl> <5257BB9102000078000FA6F2@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <5257CB49.4030005@citrix.com> <20131011111521.GB3626@debian70-amd64.local.net-space.pl> <525805D1.3040900@citrix.com> <20131014135338.GD3626@debian70-amd64.local.net-space.pl> <525BFC35.70801@citrix.com> <20131014181352.GE3626@debian70-amd64.local.net-space.pl> <20131114112042.GK3439@olila.local.net-space.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131114112042.GK3439@olila.local.net-space.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Daniel Kiper Cc: Keir Fraser , Daniel Kiper , Jan Beulich , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 14/11/13 11:20, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > Now I think that we are at point in which we should solve this issue. A option > is merged now with short comment. Personally I prefer C with Eric Biederman comment. > However, if you are not convinced we could stay with A but I prefer that current > comment would be extended with clear statement why we decided to deviate from Linux > implementation (which we used as a base for our development). I still prefer option A but if you still think otherwise, post a patch with a full explanation of why and I can reconsider it. David