From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shriram Rajagopalan Subject: Re: Q: Clarification about extra option ..Re: Re: [PATCH] pvops: Make suspend work when CONFIG_SUSPEND=n Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 08:33:25 -0800 Message-ID: References: <201103042107.55975.rjw@sisk.pl> <201103062312.07555.rjw@sisk.pl> Reply-To: rshriram@cs.ubc.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0151642223==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Ian Campbell , Frank Pan , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============0151642223== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636b14adb68dbd5049de710aa --001636b14adb68dbd5049de710aa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Stefano Stabellini < stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > The only issue is that I cannot completely "test" these two patches > > > against Rafael's tree > > > - I have verified that the kernel config file generated is as > expected. > > > - I cannot verify any other xen save/restore functionality as my xen > > > suspend freeze-thaw patches dont apply cleanly on Rafael's tree > > > (it does not have xen suspend refactoring patches > > > ceb180294790c8a6a437533488616f6b591b49d0, that my patches depend on. > > > They are present only in Stefano's tree). > > > > In that case, I'm afraid, it's better to wait until both trees are merged > > and push your patches at that time. > > I agree even if it probably means loosing the next merge window. > > I believe the original intention of the freeze-thaw patches was to fix the bug that caused Guest VM hangs, while taking a checkpoint. Anyway, is there any chance of pushing these patches into the pvops tree atleast? I can rebase them to pvops. shriram --001636b14adb68dbd5049de710aa Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Stefano Stabelli= ni <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > The only issue is that I cannot completely "test" these= two patches
> > against Rafael's tree
> > =A0- I have verified that the kernel config file generated is as = expected.
> > =A0- I cannot verify any other xen save/restore functionality as = my xen
> > =A0 =A0suspend freeze-thaw patches dont apply cleanly on Rafael&#= 39;s tree
> > =A0 (it does not have xen suspend refactoring patches
> > =A0 ceb180294790c8a6a437533488616f6b591b49d0, that my patches dep= end on.
> > =A0 They are present only in Stefano's tree).
>
> In that case, I'm afraid, it's better to wait until both trees= are merged
> and push your patches at that time.

I agree even if it probably means loosing the next merge window.

I believe the original intention of the freeze-thaw patc= hes was to fix the bug that caused
Guest VM hangs, while taking a checkp= oint.

Anyway, is there any chance of pushing these patches into the= pvops tree atleast?
I can rebase them to pvops.

shriram

--001636b14adb68dbd5049de710aa-- --===============0151642223== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel --===============0151642223==--