From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: Xen 4.5 development update (July update)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:53:54 +0200
Message-ID: <1408528434.3725.82.camel@Solace.lan>
References: <20140815172302.2A9FEC33B7@laptop.dumpdata.com>
	<CAENZ-+mrR+wpyz620RwvywicNP-oxY0OYT=oSE23LRHqik-yjw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4393368864369475688=="
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>) id 1XK2az-0000cM-Mx
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 09:54:21 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAENZ-+mrR+wpyz620RwvywicNP-oxY0OYT=oSE23LRHqik-yjw@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Meng Xu <xumengpanda@gmail.com>
Cc: Artem Mygaiev <artem.mygaiev@globallogic.com>, Matt Wilson <msw@amazon.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "dongxiao.xu@intel.com" <dongxiao.xu@intel.com>, "mengxu@cis.upenn.edu" <mengxu@cis.upenn.edu>, "feng.wu@intel.com" <feng.wu@intel.com>, "zhigang.x.wang@oracle.com" <zhigang.x.wang@oracle.com>, Parth Dixit <parth.dixit@linaro.org>, "Paul.Skentzos@dornerworks.com" <Paul.Skentzos@dornerworks.com>, "wency@cn.fujitsu.com" <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>, "rcojocaru@bitdefender.com" <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>, "guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com" <guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com>, "Vijaya.Kumar@caviumnetworks.com" <Vijaya.Kumar@caviumnetworks.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Joshua Whitehead <josh.whitehead@dornerworks.com>, "zoltan.kiss@citrix.com" <zoltan.kiss@citrix.com>, Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@gmail.com>, "yang.z.zhang@intel.com" <yan>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

--===============4393368864369475688==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QtHYgNj0uqHTzD/9XEzm"

--=-QtHYgNj0uqHTzD/9XEzm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On ven, 2014-08-15 at 20:31 -0400, Meng Xu wrote:
>=20
>=20
>        =20
>         The "prognosis" is now the likelihood of completion in the 4.5
>         timeframe.
>         A bunch of items had moved to the completed phase which is
>         fantastic.
>        =20
>         none - nothing yet
>         fair - still working on it, patches are prototypes or RFC
>         ok   - patches posted, acting on review
>         good - some last minute pieces
>         done - all done, might have bugs
>        =20
>=20
>=20
>         *  XenRT (Preemptive Global Earliest Deadline First) (fair)
>            RFC patch posted (v2)
>           -  Meng Xu
>=20

> Although it's a RFC patch, the XenRT can actually works well on the
> machines we have. It currently has the preemptive global EDF
> scheduler. The functionalities I'm currently working on is improving
> its performance based on the review of the first version of patches.=20
>=20
If this is the case, I think you should drop the RFC tag/status.

The idea is this: if you are asking the Xen dev community to provide
some feedback on an idea/prototype implementation, then keep the RFC
tag. If you are proposing something for inclusion in upstream Xen and,
at least according to your own opinion, the code you are submitting is
good enough to be included, then you need to drop the RFC tag.

Then, of course, there will still be reviews, changes will be requested,
new versions, etc., but it's important to mark the difference between
these two phases, as said, by either retaining or dripping the tag.

Basing on what you're saying (i.e., that you're working on performances
optimizations), on how the last patch series looked and on the comments
you got, I think it would be fine for you to send the next round of
patches as proper v1, rather than "RFC v3", but that's, of course, up to
you. :-)

Regards,
Dario

--=20
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)


--=-QtHYgNj0uqHTzD/9XEzm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEABECAAYFAlP0cDIACgkQk4XaBE3IOsRD5ACdE+dL0/HRamPhPleX1XsGt2Bp
PgwAn3Wv12AgrAV0KRFa2ferql25Pcdx
=Lovj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-QtHYgNj0uqHTzD/9XEzm--


--===============4393368864369475688==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

--===============4393368864369475688==--