On 18/12/13 15:14, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:51:22AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 17:53 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> There is no reasons why an HVM guest shouldn't be allowed to use xenfb. >>> As a matter of fact ARM guests, HVM from Linux POV, can use xenfb. >>> Given that no Xen toolstacks configure a xenfb backend for x86 HVM >>> guests, they are not affected. >> and if a toolstack did I think it would be reasonable to expect the >> kernel to at least try and drive it! >> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com> >> Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> > I think David Vrabel is going to Nack it unless there is a test-case. > > I am saying that because in his previous statement for Wei's multi-page > patches was that if there are no users (or at least no test-cases) then > it should not be part of the kernel.
Without trying to presume too much, I really don't think he would. This patch is taking an existing thing and permitting it to work in more cases (which is a good change IMO). The multi-page rings was completely brand new functionality with no consumers at all, so no ability to verify the implementation. It is a completely different context. ~Andrew -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
