From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KcAlv-0006aC-U6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:17:07 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KcAlt-0006Un-Dh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:17:06 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57171 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KcAlt-0006UO-62 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:17:05 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.241]:64428) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KcAls-0006G2-TJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:17:05 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d18so163986and.130 for ; Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48C3477F.4080205@codemonkey.ws> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:16:15 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Xen patches - status summary References: <18621.28008.90183.80897@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <48BEDAC3.8040109@redhat.com> <48BF4C46.2060101@codemonkey.ws> <18625.2823.334560.150430@mariner.uk.xensource.com> In-Reply-To: <18625.2823.334560.150430@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Ian Jackson wrote: > Anthony Liguori writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] Xen patches - status summary"): > > I think the rule should generally be that a patch should be applied if > it (a) makes some improvement, no matter how minor and (b) does not > make any future desirable restructuring harder. The fact that a > restructuring is desirable does not mean that minor improvements > should be blocked in the meantime. > There's a balance between band-aid fixing and making forward progress in improving things. Honestly, you've spent more time writing emails trying to avoid adding special handling for ENOSPC than it would have taken to just update the original patch. Reporting an IDE error on ENOSPC is just plain wrong. It doesn't matter if already broken and you're just changing how it's broken. It's not like it's a massive effort to update the patch. I'll eventually get to it myself but it's a whole lot easier for you to just do it and then we can move on to more important things :-) Regards, Anthony Liguori > Ian. > > >