From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix restore handling checks Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:10:06 +0200 Message-ID: <4C21F99E.7070807@redhat.com> References: <4C204D8C.3020303@redhat.com> <19488.53018.201328.781032@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <4C21EDA5.5070100@redhat.com> <19489.61339.878715.309115@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <4C21F034.7060501@redhat.com> <19489.62735.769351.371689@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <4C21F5DC.5050806@redhat.com> <19489.63562.359937.534740@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <19489.63562.359937.534740@mariner.uk.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: Ian Jackson Cc: Michal Novotny , "'xen-devel@lists.xensource.com'" , Keir Fraser List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/23/2010 02:04 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Michal Novotny writes ("Re: [PATCH] Fix restore handling checks"): >> Are you saying that it's OK for administrators to violate the IDE specs >> and do it the way that is should never be done since this way it's not >> working on bare-metal systems ? This is the breach and it shouldn't be >> done this way so why to allow it? Shouldn't we care the code complies >> with the specifications to have it done the right way? > > The job of the programmer is to give effect to the wishes of the > users, not to comply with rules from elsewhere. If the wishes of the > users conflict with rules from elsewhere, including specs, then the > programmer should do what the user wants. Telling him that he wanted something that cannot be _emulated_ accurately is also a possibility. But we can agree to disagree here and Michal can remove this part of the patch. Paolo