On 1/14/16 11:18 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Doug Goldstein writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77945: > regressions - FAIL [and 2 more messages]"): >> On 1/14/16 10:27 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: >>> Is any of this of any use ? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ian. >>> (no less confused after writing this than I was before) >> >> The take away I see here is whatever path is taken we just need to be a >> bit more explicit with what does what or what is called what to avoid >> potential breakages. > > Heh. Does this mean that we should expect more or different patches > from you ? I see your conversation with Ian Campbell about at least > one of the osstest patches is ongoing... > > Ian. >
So I stand behind the two submitted patches for osstest because I feel that it makes it more explicit. However, I understand your point that you would prefer 1 knob and it be the same knob that users use so I'm willing to do the work necessarily to get the code behaving how you would prefer but I would hope we make the code more explicit is all. So basically, if the patches are thumbs downed I'll change. -- Doug Goldstein
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel