Re: Xen is a feature

Chris Friesen
2009-06-02T17:28:45Z

George Dunlap wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> No one disputes the idea that changes shouldn't be ugly; no one disputes
> the idea that changes shouldn't introduce performance regressions. But
> there are patchqueues that are ready, signed-off by other maintainers,
> and which Ingo admits that he has no technical objections to, but
> refuses to merge.

I can't comment on this part, but if so that seems unfortunate.

> The main point of Jeremy's e-mail was NOT to say, "Lots of people use
> this so you should merge it." He's was responding to Xen being treated
> like it had no benefit. It does have a benefit; it is a feature.

I don't know about others, but I certainly interpreted a number of posts
saying exactly that--that it's useful so it should be included.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Xen is not useful or that it should
not ever be included, rather the question is whether the current set of
patches is suitable for addition or whether they are too messy and
should be cleaned up first.

Chris