From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [V10 PATCH 00/23]PVH xen: Phase I, Version 10 patches... Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:04:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20130724150423.GO2518@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <51EFC780.7030304@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51EFC780.7030304@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrew Cooper , Mukesh Rathor Cc: Keir Fraser , Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 01:24:32PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 24/07/13 07:21, Keir Fraser wrote: > > On 24/07/2013 02:59, "Mukesh Rathor" wrote: > > > >> Hi Keir, > >> > >> These V10 patches are in pretty good shape. I've addressed all the > >> issues Jan had in previous versions, and jfyi, he and I've been back > >> and forth on pretty much every patch in this series. Lot of the patches > >> have 'acked' or 'reviewed' tags. Kindly review. > > These need to get in the tree now, or they're going to miss yet another > > cycle. Hasn't it been two/three years? > > > > Acked-by: Keir Fraser > > Other than my minor nit in patch 4, > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper > > If possible, I will see about putting these patches in and running a > standard set of regression tests. Given the extent of changes to both Yeeey! > regular HVM and PV guests, it would be nice to know if there are any > obvious problems caused by the introduction of PVH. Absolutly. That is why I am glad that Mukesh split them up to make these the 'prep' patches so if there are regressions we can easily identify them now. Thanks!