On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:33:33AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 31.03.16 at 15:28, <konrad.w...@oracle.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:07:58AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 13:43, <kon...@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:30:09AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >> >>> On 30.03.16 at 17:43, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >> >> > Since they're all cosmetic, if you take care of all of them, feel free > >> >> > to stick my ack on the result. > >> >> > >> >> Actually - no, please don't. While the patch is fine content wise > >> >> then from my perspective, I'm still lacking a convincing argument > >> >> of why this new hypercall is needed in the first place. If others > >> >> are convinced by the argumentation between (mostly, iirc) you > >> >> and Andrew, I'm not going to stand in the way, but I'm also not > >> >> going to approve of the code addition without being myself > >> >> convinced. > >> > > >> > Damm. I pushed the patch in yesterday in 'staging'! > >> > > >> > We can always revert them.. > >> > > >> > "Others" being other maintainers I presume? > >> > >> Any one of the REST maintainers, yes. > > > > Changing the title to get their attention. > > Yet nothing has happened, so I think the patch needs to be > reverted (at least for the time being).
Wait what?! The natural consensus mechanism we use is lazy. If nobody objects then it is Acked. Anyhow pinged Ian Jackson on IRC. > > Jan > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel