From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/25] xen: Core Xen implementation Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:03:59 -0700 Message-ID: <462FB42F.5070503@goop.org> References: <20070423215638.563901986@goop.org> <200704251112.45898.ak@suse.de> <462FAEE3.9090900@goop.org> <200704252143.48363.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200704252143.48363.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: Ian Pratt , lkml , Adrian Bunk , virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Andrew Morton List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Andi Kleen wrote: > For me you don't need anymore, but possibly for others. > Hm. I'm not a fan of the great big monolithic patch myself, but on the other hand I don't like the idea of patches which are not self-contained steps from working->working state. Xen-core.patch is currently the (more or less) minimal set of stuff which needs to be in place to get working Xen guest up, and so from that perspective I don't think there's a good way of splitting it up. > To summarize the outstanding issues are: > - fixing sched_clock first > What was the sched_clock problem? I don't remember and outstanding issues with it. I noticed you didn't take paravirt-sched_clock. > - hopefully more review of the core pieces by others > - what i commented (minor stuff mostly) > I just rebased onto your newest patches, so I'll address your comments and repost. > - review of xenbus and drivers Yes, not much response there. J