Re: Requesting for freeze exception for RMRR

From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Cc: Kevin <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	"ian.campbell@citrix.com" <ian.campbell@citrix.com>,
	George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
	AndrewCooper <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>,
	Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Requesting for freeze exception for RMRR
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:43:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55A922890200007800092788@mail.emea.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150717132102.GL12455@zion.uk.xensource.com>

>>> On 17.07.15 at 15:21, <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> The major concern seems to be around the PCI allocation algorithm. Jan
> has different opinion from George. George provided a simple solution
> that will not make things worse than before, while Jan prefers to get
> everything right.
> 
> To be fair, the PCI allocation code in a bad state is not really
> contributor's fault.
> 
> Jan also pointed out on IRC he thinks the proper logic he asked for is
> not very hard to implement.
> 
> Given we either take George's route, which already seems to have a
> patch, or Jan's route, which he thinks shouldn't be too hard to
> implement, I'm inclined to say give this series another week (24th
> deadline still applied). Note that we've been working on this for ages,
> any delay is going to burn up more energy than necessary.
> 
> Jan and George, if you disagree with what I say above, please reply.

My main disagreement here continues to be that we're talking
about a bug fix, and hence I don't view this as needing a freeze
exception in the first place (at least not at this point in time). Yes,
the bug fix involves adding code that looks like a new feature, but
that happens with bug fixes.

Jan