Re: Requesting for freeze exception for RMRR

From: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
To: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Kevin <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	"ian.campbell@citrix.com" <ian.campbell@citrix.com>,
	George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	"ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com" <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
	Yong Y Wang <yong.y.wang@intel.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: Requesting for freeze exception for RMRR
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:32:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150717153243.GP12455@zion.uk.xensource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55A91EA6.8030406@intel.com>

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:26:30PM +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> >The PCI allocation code is in a state, but it was in a similarly bad
> >state before.  I agree with Jan's point of the risk that these new
> >changes cause a regression in booting guests, although we can mitigate
> >that somewhat by testing.
> >
> >I feel at this point that we shouldn't block the RMRR bugfix on also
> >fixing the PCI allocation algorithm (which was a pre-existing issue).
> >
> >Therefore, I recommend that v9 gets respun to v10 to address the current
> >comments, and accepted.  Afterwards, the PCI allocation algorithm gets
> >worked on as a bugfix activity, to pro actively cater for the risk of
> >regression.
> 
> If you have any good solution to fix the PCI allocation algorithm
> completely, things couldn't be better :)
> 

I think Andrew means you (or someone else) improves that algorithm
later. No need to provide a perfect solution next week.

> Thanks
> Tiejun