From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 5] support of NUMA topology in xl Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:50:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: <19723.41436.419700.193126@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <19723.41436.419700.193126@mariner.uk.xensource.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: Ian Jackson , Juergen Gross Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 17/12/2010 17:46, "Ian Jackson" wrote: > Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] support of NUMA topology > in xl"): >> any reason you didn't apply my series up to now? >> Did I miss any objection? > > No, there is no problem with your series. However, our tests are > failing a lot and I wanted to wait until we have a test pass and a > push before dumping a lot more stuff into xen-unstable. > > So I'm holding off on your series as well as a few others. > > Keir, it would be nice if we could try to restrict stuff going into > xen-unstable to obvious bugfixes, for a bit. > > I suggest that our rule for the end-of-December freeze should be that > patches which were posted in their final form or something very like > it by (say) Christmas Eve should go into 4.1, even if we have held off > actually committing them until early January. > > Alternatively I can throw everything in now and try to fix it up later > but it does make it harder to pin down what went wrong when things > break. That sounds okay. I have nothing in my queue to be applied now anyway. -- Keir