On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 03:44:27PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:14:26PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > We want a full solution and this kind of patching makes the patches > > difficuilt to review because later patches revert earlier ones. > > I know you rather want to see KVM development stalled for more months > than to get a partial solution now that already covers KVM and GRU > with the same API that XPMEM will also use later. It's very unfair on > your side to pretend to stall other people development if what you > need has stronger requirements and can't be merged immediately. This > is especially true given it was publically stated that XPMEM never > passed all regression tests anyway, so you can't possibly be in such
XPMEM has passed all regression tests using your version 12 notifiers. I have a bug in xpmem which shows up on our 8x oversubscription tests, but that is clearly my bug to figure out. Unfortunately it only shows up on a 128 processor machine so I have 1024 stack traces to sort through each time it fails. Does take a bit of time and a lot of concentration. > an hurry like we are, we can't progress without this. Infact we can SGI is under an equally strict timeline. We really needed the sleeping version into 2.6.26. We may still be able to get this accepted by vendor distros if we make 2.6.27. Thanks, Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel