From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: VCPUOP_set_periodic_timer Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:54:17 +0000 Message-ID: <52861979.6020801@eu.citrix.com> References: <528610BE.2080802@citrix.com> <52861792.8090905@dornerworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52861792.8090905@dornerworks.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: Nate Studer , Andrew Cooper , Simon Martin Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 15/11/13 12:46, Nate Studer wrote: > On 11/15/2013 7:17 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> The cpupool issue with the arinc653 scheduler is now fixed (or at least believed >> to be) in xen-unstable. > The crashes are fixed in unstable, but pools still do not work in xen-unstable > unless the system is booted with the arinc653 scheduler, the dom0_max_vcpus > parameter is set to 1, and cpu0 is never removed from Pool-0. > > I have pools working locally without these restrictions, but I was unable to get > a patchset around before the feature freeze was declared, so I believe it is too > late to try and get it into unstable. (George, correct me if I am wrong.) Bug fixes are not features. :-) Bug fixes are accepted very late in the release process. The only reason they might ever be rejected is if we think there may be a risk that the fix will break other working functionality -- particularly if we think that breakage may not be discovered until after the release. If the fixes involve generic scheduling code, I imagine they would be accepted well into RC3 if they were not terribly complicated; if they were limited to the arinc653 scheduler itself, they could probably be accepted until just before the release. -George