From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH 0/4] gdbsx: fix 3 bugs
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:53:40 -0800
Message-ID: <20140106165340.30c42de0@mantra.us.oracle.com>
References: <1388857936-664-1-git-send-email-dslutz@verizon.com>
	<1389023148.31766.64.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1389023148.31766.64.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.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: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:45:48 +0000
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 12:52 -0500, Don Slutz wrote:
> > Release manager requests:
> >   patch 1 should be in 4.4.0
> >   patch 3 and 4 would be good to be in 4.4.0
> 
> (as acting RM in George's absence):
> 
> In all three cases what is missing is the "why" and the appropriate
> analysis from
> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze 
> i.e. what is the impact of the bug (i..e what are the advantages of
> the fix) and what are the risks of this changing causing further
> breakage? I'm not really in a position to evaluate the risk of a
> change in gdbsx, so someone needs to tell me.
> 
> I think given that gdbsx is a somewhat "peripheral" bit of code and
> that it is targeted at developers (who might be better able to
> tolerate any resulting issues and more able to apply subsequent
> fixups than regular users) we can accept a larger risk than we would
> with a change to the hypervisor itself etc (that's assuming that all
> of these changes cannot potentially impact non-debugger usecases
> which I expect is the case from the function names but I would like
> to see confirmed).
> 
> Apart from a release ack 4 of these would need an Ack from Mukesh
> IMHO. TBH if he is happy with them then I see no reason not to give a
> release ack as well.

Right Ian, at present I believe the only user of this file is gdbsx
so 4.4 would be very low risk. The issue is in a rare use case, so it 
could wait till 4.5 too if you'd rather not. Ok either way... :)..

thanks
mukesh