From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wei Liu Subject: Re: pre-cursor email to incremental rev6 of altp2m patch series Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:25:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20150717112512.GK12455@zion.uk.xensource.com> References: <55A8DE24.6030609@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55A8DE24.6030609@citrix.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: Andrew Cooper Cc: "Sahita, Ravi" , Wei Liu , "Nakajima, Jun" , George Dunlap , Tim Deegan , Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Jan Beulich , "tlengyel@novetta.com" , Daniel De Graaf List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:51:16AM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 16/07/15 22:36, Sahita, Ravi wrote: > > Hi Wei and Maintainers, > > > > While we continue to work on the maintainer review comments - we > > prepared a minor incremental version v6 of our patch series that : > > > > 1. is rebased to staging 2. addresses a bug that we found/introduced > > in v5 > > > > The intent of creating this incremental version is to aid you in the > > decision making for the freeze exception for altp2m (that would > > allow us to work on things until the 24th). We realise that the > > decision for granting freeze exception is on Friday (17th) hence > > this email to seek feedback - we did not want maintainers to think > > that we are not working on the v5 feedback. > > > > The goal of this patch series is to identify things needed on top of > > v6 that are absolutely necessary for 4.6 and bin things we can > > continue addressing post inclusion in 4.6 (of course, the timeline > > of 24th still applies - and we will be able to respond only to a > > certain degree of changes on this v6 to meet that). > > > > We hear all the other comments we have on v5 from the maintainers > > and as we continue to work on them, we wanted feedback on whether we > > should post this v6. Note again that this v6 does not have all the > > other v5 comments addressed as we work through them simply due to > > timing (and getting you a version that cleanly applies to staging). > > > > Please give feedback on whether we should post v6 of the patch > > series. (I know this email is late for UK maintainers, but we will > > respond as soon as we see a critical mass of responses) > > > > Thanks much, Ravi > > Overall, the altp2m series is looking in good shape, with half the > series already acked/reviewed (taking into account the R-b tags which > should have been dropped). > > On balance, I think it is reasonably likely at this point that the > series can be turned around to address the remaining feedback by the > 24th. > > Therefore, my recommendation is to grant the freeze exception. > Thanks. My understanding is that this feature is low risk and very useful, and now maintainer has very positive view on this series. I'm happy to grant a freeze exception. Again, this series should be applied by the 24th, otherwise it misses the boat for 4.6. Ravi, I think the idea of incremental patch series on top of v5 will confuse reviewers. IMO you need to post a v6 full series. If you're not sure what are the absolute things that you need to address, reply to the comments in previous version and get clarification from maintainers. Wei. > ~Andrew