From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: Backports for Xen 4.6 Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:14:04 +0000 Message-ID: <569F881C.9060403@citrix.com> References: <569D0A68.4060003@citrix.com> <569F8BA002000078000C90AE@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <569F8BA002000078000C90AE@prv-mh.provo.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: Ian Jackson , Xen-devel List List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 20/01/16 12:29, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 18.01.16 at 16:53, wrote: >> Possibly also: >> 42940c046902 "x86/shadow: Fix missing newline in dprintk()" > The affected statement compiles to nothing in a release build, which > can be taken as an argument both ways. I lean towards not putting > it in. > >> 6851e979874e "VT-d: use proper error codes in iommu_enable_x2apic_IR()" > Since I had pulled this into our own tree already, and since you're > now also viewing this as useful, I guess I will throw it in. > >> 0ce647ad6f70 "x86: suppress bogus log message" > This being a purely cosmetic change, may I ask for the reason > you consider this a backport candidate? The shear volume reduction in debug builds. XenServer ships both a release and a debug hypervisor for first-line triage of customer issues. As such, "only affecting a debug build" isn't a relevant consideration for us, and I expect we are not alone here. ~Andrew