From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Requesting for freeze exception for RMRR
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:26:30 +0800
Message-ID: <55A91EA6.8030406@intel.com>
References: <55A35B5E.3000805@intel.com>
	<20150713114145.GF4108@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<55A46575.5020607@intel.com>
	<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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <55A91B1D.1050406@citrix.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: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Kevin <kevin.tian@intel.com>, "ian.campbell@citrix.com" <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.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>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

> 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 :)

Thanks
Tiejun