> On Apr 11, 2017, at 4:10 PM, Boris Ostrovsky
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>>> I think the right thing is indeed to revert 72a9b186292 (and
>>> therefore da72ff5bfcb02). Any objections?
>>
>> For the end result: depends. Is there a real error or not?
>> KarimAllah wrote that his concerns are of a t
> On Apr 11, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>
> On 10/04/17 17:32, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
>>
>> Ahmed, Karim Allah
>> karah...@amazon.de
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2017, at 3:57 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>
>>&g
Ahmed, Karim Allah
karah...@amazon.de
> On Apr 10, 2017, at 3:57 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>
> On 10/04/17 15:47, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 04/07/2017 06:11 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 04/07/2017 01:36 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>
Unfortunately, this commit is potentially a candidate for reverting. After a
lengthy qualification I realized that there is a function called:
"xen_strict_xenbus_quirk()" that is being called in the offending path that
short-circuits the offending code!
So at the moment any domU kernel with this c
