From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: Please ack XENMEM_claim_pages hypercall? Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:22:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: <50B48C8A02000078000AB851@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50B48C8A02000078000AB851@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 , Dan Magenheimer Cc: Ian Campbell , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , George Dunlap , TimDeegan , Ian Jackson , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Zhigang Wang List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 27/11/2012 08:48, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > Sorry, there must have been some misunderstanding here: First > of all, without a maintainer's ack (Keir's in this case) I can't commit > anything to code that I'm not explicitly listed for as maintainer. > > Second, while I said the code itself looks acceptable, I also pointed > out that in the shape it is right now it is dead code, as there's no > user for it. So all we would get would be the risk of new bugs (and > the one I just pointed out worries me in so far as how much testing > this code really has seen). > > Third, deferral (or denial) of the patch going in is certainly not a > blocking factor for tools side development at Oracle. In the worst > case, you'd have to maintain the patch in your own tree(s); I do > realize that you want to avoid that (as I would, but there are > examples of patches that we carry in our trees that didn't get > accepted into the community one - luckily they're of smaller size). It's actually not that large a patch, and perhaps we could take a domain_adjust_tot_pages() hook which would reduce the size of any private patch, while not inflicting a maintenance or bug burden on mainline. -- Keir