From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Kiper Subject: Re: Xen 4.4 development update Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:43:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20130813124358.GA975@router-fw-old.local.net-space.pl> References: <20130809200131.GA3831@router-fw-old.local.net-space.pl> <5208B39002000078000EB087@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20130812185501.GA23593@router-fw-old.local.net-space.pl> <520A22F602000078000EB782@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <520A22F602000078000EB782@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, George Dunlap , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , david.vrabel@citrix.com, ross.philipson@citrix.com, richard.l.maliszewski@intel.com, Daniel Kiper List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:13:42AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 12.08.13 at 20:55, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 09:06:08AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 09.08.13 at 22:01, Daniel Kiper wrote: > >> > - unmodified_drivers should be removed because as I know > >> > they are not maintained for very long time; if you > >> > agree I could do that, > >> > >> The most recent update to them was on 2013-02-12, so not all > >> _that_ long ago. We're still using them, so I'd hope that they > >> could stay in the tree, saving us from having to patch them back > >> in. > > > > As I understood from [1] unmodified_drivers is not maintained. > > However, if you found out that it was updated quite recently then > > I do not insist on removing it. > > > > 1) http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-06/msg00730.html > > What I said there has nothing to do with the maintenance status > of the unmodified_drivers/ subtree; instead, it is related to the > need to also have a suitable forward ported Linux tree to build > them against. It looks that I understood your email in wrong way. Thanks for clarification. Daniel