From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Tian, Kevin" Subject: Re: Requesting for freeze exception for RMRR Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 01:14:29 +0000 Message-ID: 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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55A91B1D.1050406@citrix.com> Content-Language: en-US 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 , Wei Liu , Jan Beulich , "Chen, Tiejun" Cc: George Dunlap , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , "ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com" , "ian.campbell@citrix.com" , "Wang, Yong Y" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.cooper3@citrix.com] > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:11 PM > > On 17/07/15 15:01, Wei Liu wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:43:05PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>> On 17.07.15 at 15:21, 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. > >> > > Fine then. I'm not going to argue feature vs bug fix at this stage. The > > final resolution is still the same. Tiejun can continue working on this > > next week. > > Sorry for being slow in my maintainership role with this series. (I > have been busy with the migration v2 side of things). > > I can appreciate Wei's position that, despite this being a bugfix, it > does exhibit itself as a new feature, and we don't want to be merging a > new feature beyond the hard feature freeze point. > > 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. > Agree with this recommendation. Thanks Kevin