From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 0/10] kexec: extend kexec hypercall for use with pv-ops kernels Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:52:32 +0100 Message-ID: <51CAD60002000078000E0A6C@nat28.tlf.novell.com> References: <1372095741-27012-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com> <20130625192710.GC10322@debian70-amd64.local.net-space.pl> <51CAB7EB.6070704@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51CAB7EB.6070704@citrix.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: David Vrabel Cc: Daniel Kiper , Keir Fraser , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 26.06.13 at 11:44, David Vrabel wrote: > On 25/06/13 20:27, Daniel Kiper wrote: >> Please prepare next version of these patches and repost with >> kexec-tools patches. They are integral part of new Xen kexec >> implementation and it is worth to review both patch series together. > > The kexec-tools patches haven't changed and I don't see any merit in > reposting them until the Xen patches are applied. So what if we apply the Xen patches, and then you're asked to do changes to the tools ones, requiring adjustments to the interface? Or if the tools side patches get rejected altogether? There certainly ought to be some mutual agreement that both will get applied in a certain (final) shape... Jan