From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: Re: xenpm: provide core/package cstate residencies Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:55:35 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4C3C3268020000780000AE72@vpn.id2.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C3C3268020000780000AE72@vpn.id2.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jan Beulich Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 13/07/2010 08:31, "Jan Beulich" wrote: >>>> On 12.07.10 at 19:34, Keir Fraser wrote: >> I applied the hypervisor component of this patch. I leave it to Ian Jackson >> to deal with the tools part. In future please split patches that touch both >> hypervisor and tools into a patch series in which each component patch >> touches only one or the other. > > Hmm, is that really a good mechanism, especially when a change > modifies the hypervisor <-> tools interface in an incompatible way? > The resulting inconsistency, besides being bad by itself, would likely > make bisecting more difficult. In this case the change isn't an API, or even an ABI, breakage. A consistent build of hypervisor and tools will work, and continue to work, across the hypervisor-only changeset. I think there will rarely be interface-breaking patches. If there are we might have to consider them as one unit. We'll see. A patch series will usually be the correct way to go however. -- Keir