Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> George Dunlap 04/15/16 1:23 PM >>> >On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>Sure, mistakes happen; but I hope it's not being to controversial to >>>say that in general, the procedure should be arranged such that the >>>person who

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane. [and 1 more messages]

>>> Ian Jackson 04/14/16 8:12 PM >>> >Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was: >> And btw., considering that Konrad has already posted a revert patch, >> and I have ack-ed that one, this could now go in right away (and the >>

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>Sure, mistakes happen; but I hope it's not being to controversial to >>say that in general, the procedure should be arranged such that the >>person who makes the mistake is the one who has to do deal with the >>most

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane. [and 1 more messages]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:11:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested > Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring > XENVER_ but sane."): > > On the other hand, I think

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane. [and 1 more messages]

George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane."): > On the other hand, I think there's a bit of a faulty interpretation of > the procedure here. Jan reviewed the

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: George Dunlap 04/14/16 5:16 PM >>> >>On the other hand, I think there's a bit of a faulty interpretation of >>the procedure here. Jan reviewed the patch thoroughly and then acked >>it; on the

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> George Dunlap 04/14/16 6:20 PM >>> >On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > George Dunlap 04/14/16 5:16 PM >>> >>>On the other hand, I think there's a bit of a faulty interpretation of >>>the procedure

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> George Dunlap 04/14/16 5:16 PM >>> >On the other hand, I think there's a bit of a faulty interpretation of >the procedure here. Jan reviewed the patch thoroughly and then acked >it; on the basis of that, Konrad legitimately checked it in. After it >was checked in

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested > Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring > XENVER_ but sane."): >> George Dunl

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane."): > George Dunlap <dunl...@umich.edu> 04/12/16 11:58 AM >>> > >2. Use the existing hypercall but we

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> 04/12/16 6:47 PM >>> >George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested >Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ >>but sane.&quo

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane."): > Well we know which option Andy prefers, but are there other options > that Andy is not absolutely opposed t

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> George Dunlap 04/12/16 4:38 PM >>> >On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > wrote: >> options (1-4) seem perfectly fine to me. FWIW my preferred color >> would probably be 1 because it's the easiest and least inconsistent >> with

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 09:17:29AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> George Dunlap 04/12/16 11:58 AM >>> > >On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> ISTM that the lower duplication (which in principle is an advantage > >>> which will be time

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> George Dunlap 04/12/16 11:58 AM >>> >On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> ISTM that the lower duplication (which in principle is an advantage >>> which will be time limited if we are ever able to completely remove >>> teh old

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 03:38:31PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > wrote: > >> 3. We could use a new hypercall only for new functionality, with the > >> proposed new semantics. This would at minimum be build-id, but >

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> 3. We could use a new hypercall only for new functionality, with the >> proposed new semantics. This would at minimum be build-id, but >> probably also extraversion, compileinfo, changeset, maybe >>

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:58:09AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > [snip] > >> ISTM that the lower duplication (which in principle is an advantage > >> which will be time limited if we are ever able to completely remove > >>

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: [snip] >> ISTM that the lower duplication (which in principle is an advantage >> which will be time limited if we are ever able to completely remove >> teh old hypercall) comes with the cost of (in the long term) increased >>

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> On 11.04.16 at 19:13, <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: > [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring > XENVER_ but sane."): >> On 11.04.16 at

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> On 11.04.16 at 19:13, <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: > [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring > XENVER_ but sane."): >> On 11.04.16 at

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane."): > On 11.04.16 at 18:25, <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > But any improvement from an old API

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> On 11.04.16 at 18:53, wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 05:25:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: >> Certainly if >> we are going to permit these strings etc. to be bigger than fits in >> the old

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> On 11.04.16 at 18:25, <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: > [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring > XENVER_ but sane."): >> On 11.04.16 at

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 05:25:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: > [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring > XENVER_ but sane."): > > On 11.04.16 at 16:22, <ian.

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane."): > On 11.04.16 at 16:22, <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > But to an extent some of this conversati

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> On 11.04.16 at 16:22, <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested > Was:Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall > mirroring XENVER_ but sane."): >> On Mo

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane."): > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:50:25AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I don't think I would be content

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:50:25AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: > [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring > XENVER_ but sane."): > > On 08.04.16 at 19:41, <andr

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane."): > On 08.04.16 at 19:41, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > > The interface for the old version

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> On 08.04.16 at 19:41, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 08/04/16 18:21, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested > Was:Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall > mirror

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On 08/04/16 18:21, Ian Jackson wrote: > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested > Was:Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall > mirroring XENVER_ but sane."): >> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:33:33AM -0600, J

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 01:23:23PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 06:21:27PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:13:08AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > >>> On 08.04.16 at 19:09, wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 06:21:27PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:13:08AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >>> On 08.04.16 at 19:09, wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:33:33AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 15:28,

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane."): > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:33:33AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > Yet nothing has happened, so I th

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:13:08AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 08.04.16 at 19:09, wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:33:33AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 15:28, wrote: > >> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:07:58AM -0600,

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:33:33AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 31.03.16 at 15:28, wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:07:58AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 13:43, wrote: > >> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:30:09AM -0600, Jan

Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> On 08.04.16 at 19:09, wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:33:33AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 15:28, wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:07:58AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 13:43,

[Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> On 31.03.16 at 15:28, wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:07:58AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 13:43, wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:30:09AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> >>> On 30.03.16 at 17:43,

[Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

>>> On 31.03.16 at 15:28, wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:07:58AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 13:43, wrote: >> > it should not really be there but in a new hypercall that can do >> > three arguments (the length) and be able to

[Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:07:58AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 31.03.16 at 13:43, wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:30:09AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 30.03.16 at 17:43, wrote: > >> > Since they're all cosmetic, if you take care of all