From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0 PATCH 3/3] PVH dom0: construct_dom0 changes
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:13:00 +0100
Message-ID: <5255565C.4020302@citrix.com>
References: <1380142988-9487-1-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<1380142988-9487-4-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<5244064102000078000F69AF@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<20130926171737.071f118f@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<524547CF02000078000F73F7@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<20131002175358.5f31579c@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<524E820002000078000F8C16@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<20131007175852.6583ea0d@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<5253D58602000078000F975C@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<5253D87802000078000F9771@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<5253D2E5.6040107@eu.citrix.com>
	<6b1ddd55-6b5f-4c1e-8c8b-70b0116afc5d@email.android.com>
	<52555403.1090202@eu.citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>) id 1VTtZZ-0001Qx-8d
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:13:05 +0000
In-Reply-To: <52555403.1090202@eu.citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, keir.xen@gmail.com, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 09/10/13 14:02, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/08/2013 01:30 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>
>> These issues sprang up with your patches,  not with the ones that
>> Mukesh posted ? Which did get tested for regression and passed with
>> flying colours? That means there is a working baseline. Would that help?
>> Mukesh do you have any ideas what might be amiss?
>
> The issues with the code motion patch are almost certainly mine.  Andy
> Cooper ran one of Mukesh's versions through one of the XenRT tests
> (probably a nightly) and it came up fine.  I just need to go through
> and figure out what I messed up.

I ran Mukesh's v10 series through a XenServer BST, which confirmed no
glaring function regressions in PV and HVM domains.

~Andrew