From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: Requesting for freeze exception for RMRR Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:11:25 +0100 Message-ID: <55A91B1D.1050406@citrix.com> References: <55A35B5E.3000805@intel.com> <20150713114145.GF4108@zion.uk.xensource.com> <55A46575.5020607@intel.com> <20150714092915.GC4152@zion.uk.xensource.com> <55A85758.2010702@intel.com> <20150717091726.GG12455@zion.uk.xensource.com> <55A8C9E7.7080702@intel.com> <20150717093041.GI12455@zion.uk.xensource.com> <20150717132102.GL12455@zion.uk.xensource.com> <55A922890200007800092788@mail.emea.novell.com> <20150717140157.GM12455@zion.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150717140157.GM12455@zion.uk.xensource.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: Wei Liu , Jan Beulich , Tiejun Chen Cc: Kevin , "ian.campbell@citrix.com" , George Dunlap , "ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com" , Yong Y Wang , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 17/07/15 15:01, Wei Liu wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:43:05PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 17.07.15 at 15:21, wrote: >>> The major concern seems to be around the PCI allocation algorithm. Jan >>> has different opinion from George. George provided a simple solution >>> that will not make things worse than before, while Jan prefers to get >>> everything right. >>> >>> To be fair, the PCI allocation code in a bad state is not really >>> contributor's fault. >>> >>> Jan also pointed out on IRC he thinks the proper logic he asked for is >>> not very hard to implement. >>> >>> Given we either take George's route, which already seems to have a >>> patch, or Jan's route, which he thinks shouldn't be too hard to >>> implement, I'm inclined to say give this series another week (24th >>> deadline still applied). Note that we've been working on this for ages, >>> any delay is going to burn up more energy than necessary. >>> >>> Jan and George, if you disagree with what I say above, please reply. >> My main disagreement here continues to be that we're talking >> about a bug fix, and hence I don't view this as needing a freeze >> exception in the first place (at least not at this point in time). Yes, >> the bug fix involves adding code that looks like a new feature, but >> that happens with bug fixes. >> > Fine then. I'm not going to argue feature vs bug fix at this stage. The > final resolution is still the same. Tiejun can continue working on this > next week. Sorry for being slow in my maintainership role with this series. (I have been busy with the migration v2 side of things). I can appreciate Wei's position that, despite this being a bugfix, it does exhibit itself as a new feature, and we don't want to be merging a new feature beyond the hard feature freeze point. The PCI allocation code is in a state, but it was in a similarly bad state before. I agree with Jan's point of the risk that these new changes cause a regression in booting guests, although we can mitigate that somewhat by testing. I feel at this point that we shouldn't block the RMRR bugfix on also fixing the PCI allocation algorithm (which was a pre-existing issue). Therefore, I recommend that v9 gets respun to v10 to address the current comments, and accepted. Afterwards, the PCI allocation algorithm gets worked on as a bugfix activity, to pro actively cater for the risk of regression. ~Andrew