From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juergen Gross Subject: Re: Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1 Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:01:12 +0200 Message-ID: <500CDA98.4010205@ts.fujitsu.com> References: <4FFFBB55.60401@ts.fujitsu.com> <20488.9122.701811.248760@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <5008F29F.4010903@ts.fujitsu.com> <5009B336.8000905@eu.citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5009B336.8000905@eu.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: George Dunlap Cc: Keir Fraser , Ian Jackson , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Am 20.07.2012 21:36, schrieb George Dunlap: > On 19/07/12 22:54, Juergen Gross wrote: >> Am 19.07.2012 17:11, schrieb Ian Jackson: >>> Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Backport requests of cs >>> 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1"): >>>> On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross" >>>> wrote: >>>>> I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and >>>>> 4.1. The backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are >>>>> willing to take them. >>>> Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at >>>> least an Ack >>>> from) a tools maintainer. >>> Thanks for replying Keir, but I'm rather queasy about this. >>> >>> These patches have not been in any released version of Xen and are >>> fairly substantial. I would say that we should not backport anything >>> that isn't a critical bugfix which hasn't been sitting in a released >>> version of Xen for a while; and a new feature ought to be considered >>> very carefully. >>> >>> Now maybe the unfortunately extended 4.2 release cycle may mean we >>> should relax this rule but I'd prefer to see a clear justification for >>> why this is important to retrofit to 4.1. >> Live migration is a main high-availability feature of our next release. >> >> A performance degradation of 10% and more will not be easily accepted for >> a system which is expected to be up 24/7. > Is there a reason you can't just do as XenServer and XCP have done, and > have them in a local patch queue? That's plan C. :-) We are using SLES as base, so plan B is asking Suse... > Obviously it's better to keep a local patch queue as short as possible, > but it doesn't seem like you're really going to be that crippled if we > wait to check them in. Correct. I had to try. :-) Juergen -- Juergen Gross Principal Developer Operating Systems PDG ES&S SWE OS6 Telephone: +49 (0) 89 3222 2967 Fujitsu Technology Solutions e-mail: juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com Domagkstr. 28 Internet: ts.fujitsu.com D-80807 Muenchen Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html