From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/20] PVH xen: introduce pvh.c
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 17:08:06 -0700
Message-ID: <20130520170806.7a96a8d8@mantra.us.oracle.com>
References: <1368579168-30829-1-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<1368579168-30829-12-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<519382BA02000078000D6658@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<20130515184207.0f50b06d@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<5194AE4C02000078000D6A2D@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<20130516172721.74867731@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<5195EDA702000078000D6E88@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <5195EDA702000078000D6E88@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:43:19 +0100
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 17.05.13 at 02:27, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
> >>> wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:00:44 +0100
> > "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> >>> On 16.05.13 at 03:42, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
.... 
> > My understanding with previous maintainers was, establish a
> > baseline with something working, then keep adding bells and
> > whistles to it. This is an effort to that end. I am also OK
> > dropping the ball on pvh and let someones else who can finish it
> > all in one shot do it.
> 
> And I already indicated various places where I'm fine with such
> compromises. But this one - with the code already working for PV
> and HVM guests - I simply expect would work without you doing
> _anything_ (or if not, it must be something really simple that needs
> adjustment).

Actually, now that pvh.c has shrunk a lot, and code is very similar
to hvm.c, are you OK if I just add some code to hvm.c and get rid of
pvh.c?

thanks,
Mukesh