Hi Jan,
On 09/12/2019 12:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.12.2019 22:02, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 12/11/2019 14:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
Bottom line - I'm half convinced and willing to give my ack, but
I'm not convinced you truly thought through the longer term
consequences. I'd therefore be far happier to see this patch
split into a non-controversial part (anything that's not tied to
the ACPI and EFI header imports), an ACPI, and an EFI part.
I do not want to writing the same patch again in $N years time because
review and CI missed it creeping back in.
I don't think this is an unreasonable position to take.
It for sure isn't. Yet I also don't think though my request how to
split things is. By asking for the split I'm implying that we may
still reach agreement on the controversial parts, faod. Sadly once
again there are no other opinions helping to sort which route may
be the overall preferred one.
Well, for a first, I don't think I have seen any explicit request for
opinion so far and not all the relevant maintainers have been CCed here.
In general, I tend to stay clear from argument between you and Andrew to
avoid been dragged into bikeshedding.
Anyway, while I understand that we want to keep as close as upstream,
those headers are not resync very often and the changes are minimal. The
long term consequence is not about resync but keeping bogus code that
can be used by everyone.
So the patch itself is a good step forward to make Xen better.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
