From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wei Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH for 4.6 0/6] Prune legacy migration and move migration v2 out of daft status Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:20:51 +0100 Message-ID: <20150722122051.GC6831@zion.uk.xensource.com> References: <1437388679-16468-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <1437561186.12884.14.camel@citrix.com> <20150722112242.GA6831@zion.uk.xensource.com> <55AF7DDB.3060601@citrix.com> <20150722113023.GB6831@zion.uk.xensource.com> <55AF8547.5080207@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: <55AF8547.5080207@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: Wei Liu , Ian Campbell , Wen Congyang , Ian Jackson , Xen-devel , Yang Hongyang List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:57:59PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 22/07/15 12:30, Wei Liu wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:26:19PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >> On 22/07/15 12:22, Wei Liu wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:33:06AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 2015-07-20 at 11:37 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >>>>> This series is some cleanup following the integration of migration v2 > >>>>> into the codebase. It removes the legacy migration implementation > >>>>> (compatability is provided with the python conversion script), and > >>>>> adjusts the migration v2 docs/implementation to no longer be > >>>>> experimental. > >>>> IMHO we should take this for 4.6, there is no point in shipping > >>>> obsolete/unused code and leaving it there with the xc_domain_save name > >>>> and the supported thing with a 2 suffix will only tempt people to > >>>> continue to use or build on it. > >>>> > >>>> The only real risk here is breaking the build, since if it builds it > >>>> will surely work. > >>>> > >>>> Wei, final call is yours. > >>>> > >>> Yes. I agree with you. But please do check this doesn't conflict with > >>> COLOPre before applying. > >>> > >>> Wei. > >> There are no conflicts I am aware of, having rebased this series myself. > >> > > Do you mean you rebase on top of full series of COLOPre (including > > those patches that have not been applied)? That's what I'm looking at. > > Hongyang could still post remaining part of COLOPre within this week. > > Ah - this series does interfere with that, insofar as the other bits of > COLOPre patch the legacy code to maintain the build. > > One of us will have to rebase over the other. I am not fussed which way > around that is. > Then this series needs to wait until the window for applying patches with freeze exception is closed. Those series have priority in this week. Wei. > ~Andrew