I could imagine that there will be other parties trying to compile Xen 4.2 on a glibc >= 2.17 environment. So maybe this is worth being cherry-picked into the stable-4.2 branch? Cheers, Stefan From 5d98adc3e5e859ba23f62ca63450f6a60a9c5e2f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:50:48 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] tools/gdbsx: fix build failure with glibc-2.17 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>>> On 30.01.13 at 10:12, Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com> wrote: > I could imagine that there will be other parties trying to compile Xen 4.2 on > a > glibc >= 2.17 environment. So maybe this is worth being cherry-picked into the > stable-4.2 branch?Keir isn''t looking after the stable trees anymore, I am now. Tools backports however get usually done by Ian Jackson (Cc-ed), so you should direct future similar requests to him or me. Jan
On 30.01.2013 12:18, Jan Beulich wrote:>>>> On 30.01.13 at 10:12, Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com> wrote: >> I could imagine that there will be other parties trying to compile Xen 4.2 on >> a >> glibc >= 2.17 environment. So maybe this is worth being cherry-picked into the >> stable-4.2 branch? > > Keir isn''t looking after the stable trees anymore, I am now. > > Tools backports however get usually done by Ian Jackson (Cc-ed), > so you should direct future similar requests to him or me. > > Jan >OK, will try to remember for the future. Thanks, Stefan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
On the subject of backport requests, Can I request the backport of rev 26373:56daf05bcf69 to xen-4.2, which fixes SBDF encoding in the ocaml bindings. Rev 26374 is also a possibility, but as it is not strictly a fix, it is rather less important. Thanks, ~Andrew
Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 4.2 cherry-pick
proposal"):> On the subject of backport requests,
>
> Can I request the backport of rev 26373:56daf05bcf69 to xen-4.2, which
> fixes SBDF encoding in the ocaml bindings.
Done.
> Rev 26374 is also a possibility, but as it is not strictly a fix, it is
> rather less important.
I''m not sure whether it''s a good idea to take this.
Personally I
would be inclined to do so, because it will make any future patches
here easier if they don''t divert, but I would like to ask the
Jan''s
opinion as the stable maintainer.
Ian.
>>> On 15.02.13 at 16:07, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 4.2 cherry-pick proposal"): >> Rev 26374 is also a possibility, but as it is not strictly a fix, it is >> rather less important. > > I''m not sure whether it''s a good idea to take this. Personally I > would be inclined to do so, because it will make any future patches > here easier if they don''t divert, but I would like to ask the Jan''s > opinion as the stable maintainer.If the "no functional change" is true (which it looks like it is), then I don''t mind this being put in if it helps going forward. That said, the change looks questionable in one aspect: PCI terminology uses "device" and "slot" interchangeably, and hence it was pointless to do that part of the renaming. Jan