>>> On 12.08.11 at 17:51, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote: > We should consider doing a first RC for it asap. Does anyone have anything > specific to be backported that hasn''t already been done? E.g., toolstack > stuff, Ian?Given http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-08/msg00205.html, it should also be considered to revert 23092:0f2b9b6c5a74 (which I unintentionally reverted in -unstable with 23573:584c2e5e03d9, for which in turn I''m holding back the correction due to aforementioned regression and the lack of a comment from Stefano). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 16/08/2011 14:26, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:>>>> On 12.08.11 at 17:51, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote: >> We should consider doing a first RC for it asap. Does anyone have anything >> specific to be backported that hasn''t already been done? E.g., toolstack >> stuff, Ian? > > Given > http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-08/msg00205.html, > it should also be considered to revert 23092:0f2b9b6c5a74 (which I > unintentionally reverted in -unstable with 23573:584c2e5e03d9, for > which in turn I''m holding back the correction due to aforementioned > regression and the lack of a comment from Stefano).The change will need to be re-validated through xen-unstable anyway. I''ll revert it from 4.1-testing. -- Keir> Jan >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Keir Fraser wrote:> On 16/08/2011 14:26, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote: > > >>>> On 12.08.11 at 17:51, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We should consider doing a first RC for it asap. Does anyone have anything > >> specific to be backported that hasn''t already been done? E.g., toolstack > >> stuff, Ian? > > > > Given > > http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-08/msg00205.html, > > it should also be considered to revert 23092:0f2b9b6c5a74 (which I > > unintentionally reverted in -unstable with 23573:584c2e5e03d9, for > > which in turn I''m holding back the correction due to aforementioned > > regression and the lack of a comment from Stefano). > > The change will need to be re-validated through xen-unstable anyway. I''ll > revert it from 4.1-testing.I think that reverting the commit is a good idea, see the email I have just sent to the thread "Re: hvm_domain_use_pirq() breaks device". _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel