From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/16] xl: match output of vcpu-list with
 pinning syntax
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:14:54 +0000
Message-ID: <5284B0AE.8070807@eu.citrix.com>
References: <20131113190852.18086.5437.stgit@Solace>	
	<20131113191106.18086.38302.stgit@Solace>
	<5284AADD.7060908@eu.citrix.com> <1384427508.29902.111.camel@Abyss>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1384427508.29902.111.camel@Abyss>
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: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
Cc: Marcus Granado <Marcus.Granado@eu.citrix.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Li Yechen <lccycc123@gmail.com>, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>, Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Justin Weaver <jtweaver@hawaii.edu>, Matt Wilson <msw@amazon.com>, Elena Ufimtseva <ufimtseva@gmail.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 14/11/13 11:11, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On gio, 2013-11-14 at 10:50 +0000, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 13/11/13 19:11, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>> in fact, pinning to all the pcpus happens by specifying "all"
>>> (either on the command line or in the config file), while `xl
>>> vcpu-list' report it as "any cpu".
>>>
>>> Change this into something more consistent, by using "all"
>>> everywhere.
>> While I can see a certain logic to having the specification and the
>> output match, there is a part of me that really prefers the "any" syntax
>> in the output.
>>
> I see.
>
>> This is just expressing a preference, not a nack; if others think it
>> would be better to be consistent, I won't argue the case.
>>
> I'm fine with both. As I tried (and probably failed) to say here:
>
> "
>   Changes since v1:
>   * this patch was not there in v1. It is now as using the
>     same syntax for both input and output was requested
>     during review.
> "
>
> It was a request (from Ian Jackson) during review of v1:

Oh, right -- sorry, missed that comment (and the discussion w/ IanJ).  
In that case,

Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>

  -George