From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: Xen 4.2 TODO / Release Plan Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:40:51 +0100 Message-ID: <4FE20B23020000780008AE16@nat28.tlf.novell.com> References: <1339506046.24104.30.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4FD766E2020000780008974F@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1339509935.24104.66.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <1340205929.4906.66.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1340205929.4906.66.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini Cc: Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 20.06.12 at 17:25, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 11:48 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Ian Campbell wrote: >> > On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 14:57 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> > > >>> On 12.06.12 at 15:00, Ian Campbell wrote: >> > > > tools, blockers: >> > > > >> > > > * Adjustments needed for qdisk backend to work on non-pvops Linux. >> > > > "qemu/xendisk: set maximum number of grants to be used" (Jan > Beulich) >> > > >> > > Patch was posted and is in upstream qemu, just needs pulling back >> > > into our two clones. >> > >> > Thanks. CCing Stefano to be sure he knows that... >> >> qemu-upstream-unstable has been updated, Ian is responsible for >> qemu-xen-unstable. > > I was about to ping Ian J about this, because there seems to be breakage > which would be fixed by this (Olaf: "grant table errors with > qemu-xen-traditional" today) but it looks like these patches weren't > actually submitted against the traditional tree? Or at least I can't > find any such thing. > > Does the patch in <4FC770E20200007800087298@nat28.tlf.novell.com> apply > as is to the trad tree? Has any one tried running it? Is this what Olaf > tested in the thread referenced above? Apparently yes, except that the change did get applied to the wrong function (and hence didn't work). > That thread also references > <4FABFCF40200007800082CE0@nat28.tlf.novell.com> as something which > should be applied to the trad tree too. Has anyone tested that combo? > > I can see how Ian missed this -- it very much looked like those two > patches were for qemu-upstream only to me (from the subject, cc line etc > etc). I didn't think that I needed to formally submit patches that were requested to be ported over to -traditional when they already went into upstream qemu. If I'm wrong with this, then please let me know and I'll submit both patches asap. Jan