On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.07.15 at 11:27, wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.07.15 at 10:13, wrote:
It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It
seems to me that most of the hyp
> On 16 Jul 2015, at 09:30, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 09:08 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Does this imply this is already reviewed?
>>
>> No, that would be expressed by Reviewed-by. Acked-by merely
>> means no objection by the maintainer for the change to go in.
>
>>> On 16.07.15 at 11:27, wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.07.15 at 10:13, wrote:
>>> It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It
>>> seems to me that most of the hypervisor patches (1-3, 14-15) are
>>> either ready to go
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.07.15 at 10:13, wrote:
>> It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It
>> seems to me that most of the hypervisor patches (1-3, 14-15) are
>> either ready to go in or pretty close.
>
> Now tha
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:30:54AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 09:08 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 16.07.15 at 10:03, wrote:
> > > On 2015/7/16 15:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 10.07.15 at 16:50, wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Tiejun Chen
> >
On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 09:08 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 16.07.15 at 10:03, wrote:
> > On 2015/7/16 15:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 10.07.15 at 16:50, wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
> v7:
> >>>
> >>> It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches h
>>> On 16.07.15 at 10:13, wrote:
> It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It
> seems to me that most of the hypervisor patches (1-3, 14-15) are
> either ready to go in or pretty close.
Now that I looked over v8 I have to admit that if I was a tools
>>
It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It
seems to me that most of the hypervisor patches (1-3, 14-15) are
either ready to go in or pretty close.
Now that I looked over v8 I have to admit that if I was a tools
maintainer I wouldn't want to see some of the tools patches i
>>> On 16.07.15 at 10:03, wrote:
> On 2015/7/16 15:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.07.15 at 16:50, wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
v7:
>>>
>>> It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It
>>> seems to me that most of the hypervisor patc
On 2015/7/16 15:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.07.15 at 16:50, wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
v7:
It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It
seems to me that most of the hypervisor patches (1-3, 14-15) are
either ready to go in or pretty clos
>>> On 10.07.15 at 16:50, wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
>> v7:
>
> It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It
> seems to me that most of the hypervisor patches (1-3, 14-15) are
> either ready to go in or pretty close.
Now that I looked over
>>> On 10.07.15 at 16:50, wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
>> v7:
>
> It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It
> seems to me that most of the hypervisor patches (1-3, 14-15) are
> either ready to go in or pretty close.
>
> The main thing I th
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
> v7:
It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It
seems to me that most of the hypervisor patches (1-3, 14-15) are
either ready to go in or pretty close.
The main thing I think we're missing is the hvmloader stuff (5-7).
v7:
* Need to rename some parameters:
In the xl rdm config parsing, `reserve=' should be `policy='.
In the xl pci config parsing, `rdm_reserve=' should be `rdm_policy='.
The type `libxl_rdm_reserve_flag' should be `libxl_rdm_policy'.
The field name `reserve' in `libxl_rdm_reserve' should b
14 matches
Mail list logo
