From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: Merging xen/dom0/backend/blktap2 .. Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:35:19 -0500 Message-ID: <20110311193519.GA26059@dumpdata.com> References: <1299728032.6740.154.camel@agari.van.xensource.com> <1299745902.17339.712.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <1299753587.3476.441.camel@ramone.fritz.box> <20110310182435.GB7729@dumpdata.com> <1299794273.14978.433.camel@agari.van.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1299794273.14978.433.camel@agari.van.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Daniel Stodden Cc: Ian Campbell , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 01:57:53PM -0800, Daniel Stodden wrote: > On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 13:24 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:39:47AM -0800, Daniel Stodden wrote: > > > On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 03:31 -0500, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 03:33 +0000, Daniel Stodden wrote: > > > > > is an overall pita and I've had the pleasure several times now. > > > > > > > > Merging it into what? xen/stable-2.6.32.x or some newer upstream version > > > > based tree? > > > > > > Newer upstream. Otherwise I wouldn't bother. It's certainly not a common > > > operation, I was just suprised how much garbage is involved. > > > > There is another party that is interested in doing this too, so it might > > be a good idea to compare ideas. Let me ping them to see where they are. > > > > But putting aside the blktap2 driver - what about that ugly #ifdef CONFIG_XEN > > piece of code that went in the generic code. Is that gone? > > ?? e5dd9ae013a75881f9d08b1a2e06250b3ff83408