From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: Requesting for freeze exception for RMRR
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:32:43 +0100
Message-ID: <20150717153243.GP12455@zion.uk.xensource.com>
References: <20150714092915.GC4152@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<55A85758.2010702@intel.com>
	<20150717091726.GG12455@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<55A8C9E7.7080702@intel.com>
	<20150717093041.GI12455@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<20150717132102.GL12455@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<55A922890200007800092788@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<20150717140157.GM12455@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<55A91B1D.1050406@citrix.com> <55A91EA6.8030406@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55A91EA6.8030406@intel.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: "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>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

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