From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Weekes Subject: Re: Performance difference between Xen versions Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 12:54:28 -0700 Message-ID: <4DBF0BF4.9080009@nuclearfallout.net> References: <4DBE41C9.1010409@ts.fujitsu.com> <4DBE7819020000780003F1B6@vpn.id2.novell.com> <4DBEEF6D.8080204@nuclearfallout.net> <20110502181222.GB7498@dumpdata.com> <4DBEFB6E.4090201@nuclearfallout.net> <4DBF0306.8040000@nuclearfallout.net> <20110502193623.GB14666@dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110502193623.GB14666@dumpdata.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: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: kevin.tian@intel.com, "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , winston.l.wang@intel.com, mark.langsdorf@amd.com, ke.yu@intel.com, gang.wei@intel.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 5/2/2011 12:36 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > You are asking me I presume? > > Ummm, no idea. I would actually email the authors of the those patches (CC-ed here). Not asking you specifically, no. I just did a reply-all. I would imagine that the maintainers of the cpufreq code who I originally CC'd when sending to the list would know best, but I might just be missing something obvious again.. -John