tmem vs Xen 4.6

tmem vs Xen 4.6

[Jan Beulich]

Konrad,

I thought I'd remind you of the "some progress per release" criteria
to avoid it becoming subject to removal. The most recent changes
date back to spring 2014 afaics...

Jan

Re: tmem vs Xen 4.6

[Wei Liu]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:55:56AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Konrad,
> 
> I thought I'd remind you of the "some progress per release" criteria
> to avoid it becoming subject to removal. The most recent changes
> date back to spring 2014 afaics...
> 

I think it is a bit too late for any changes to tmem (either improvement
or removal) to be done in 4.6.

Wei.

> Jan

Re: tmem vs Xen 4.6

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 27.08.15 at 09:17, <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:55:56AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Konrad,
>> 
>> I thought I'd remind you of the "some progress per release" criteria
>> to avoid it becoming subject to removal. The most recent changes
>> date back to spring 2014 afaics...
>> 
> 
> I think it is a bit too late for any changes to tmem (either improvement
> or removal) to be done in 4.6.

While I agree for the removal part, I tend to disagree for the
improvement one: The code being unsupported/experimental, I
see no reason for isolated changes to go in until pretty late in
the process. As to removal - that would kick in after the release
only anyway, as only then we know that the established criteria
of doing at least some work for each release was not met.

Jan

Re: tmem vs Xen 4.6

[Wei Liu]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 01:55:46AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 27.08.15 at 09:17, <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:55:56AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> Konrad,
> >> 
> >> I thought I'd remind you of the "some progress per release" criteria
> >> to avoid it becoming subject to removal. The most recent changes
> >> date back to spring 2014 afaics...
> >> 
> > 
> > I think it is a bit too late for any changes to tmem (either improvement
> > or removal) to be done in 4.6.
> 
> While I agree for the removal part, I tend to disagree for the
> improvement one: The code being unsupported/experimental, I
> see no reason for isolated changes to go in until pretty late in
> the process. As to removal - that would kick in after the release

Isolated changes are probably OK. But that would still need to be
reviewed case by case.

Wei.

> only anyway, as only then we know that the established criteria
> of doing at least some work for each release was not met.
> 
> Jan

Re: tmem vs Xen 4.6

[Bob Liu]

On 08/27/2015 02:55 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Konrad,
> 
> I thought I'd remind you of the "some progress per release" criteria
> to avoid it becoming subject to removal. The most recent changes
> date back to spring 2014 afaics...
> 
> Jan
> 

AFAIR Konrad holds a few patches, I believe he will send out them shortly (Friday or Monday).

-- 
Regards,
-Bob

Re: tmem vs Xen 4.6

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:02:08PM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
> 
> On 08/27/2015 02:55 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Konrad,
> > 
> > I thought I'd remind you of the "some progress per release" criteria
> > to avoid it becoming subject to removal. The most recent changes
> > date back to spring 2014 afaics...
> > 
> > Jan
> > 
> 
> AFAIR Konrad holds a few patches, I believe he will send out them shortly (Friday or Monday).

Did it just now and also pushed them to a git tree.

Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> -Bob