On 12/04/17 15:44, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Greg KH writes ("Re: Please apply "partially revert "xen: Remove event
> channel...""):
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 03:26:53PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 12/04/17 15:13, Greg KH wrote:
Is this still true? This long thread is totally confusing, i
On 12/04/17 15:44, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Greg KH writes ("Re: Please apply "partially revert "xen: Remove event
> channel...""):
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 03:26:53PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 12/04/17 15:13, Greg KH wrote:
Is this still true? This long thread is totally confusing, i
Greg KH writes ("Re: Please apply "partially revert "xen: Remove event
channel...""):
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 03:26:53PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 12/04/17 15:13, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Is this still true? This long thread is totally confusing, is that what
> > > you really want to have
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 03:26:53PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 12/04/17 15:13, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:58:14PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> tl;dr:
> >> Please apply
> >>
> >> da72ff5bfcb02c6ac8b169a7cf597a3c8e6c4de1
> >> partially revert "xen: Remove event chan
On 12/04/17 15:13, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:58:14PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> tl;dr:
>> Please apply
>>
>> da72ff5bfcb02c6ac8b169a7cf597a3c8e6c4de1
>> partially revert "xen: Remove event channel notification through
>> Xen PCI platform device"
>>
>> to all stab
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:58:14PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> tl;dr:
> Please apply
>
> da72ff5bfcb02c6ac8b169a7cf597a3c8e6c4de1
> partially revert "xen: Remove event channel notification through
> Xen PCI platform device"
>
> to all stable branches which have a version of the or
On 11/04/17 16:42, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
>
>> 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 n
> 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:
>>>
>>> On 10/04/17 15:47, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 04/07/2017 06:11 PM,
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 theoretical nature as
xen_strict_xenbus_quirk() would mask the problem. OTOH he tells
On 11/04/17 15:22, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
>
> On 04/11/2017 05:53 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 10/04/17 19:48, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> The following is meant as a real question without any
> prejudice:
>
> How old a Xen version do we want to support in the Linux
> kernel
On 04/11/2017 05:53 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 10/04/17 19:48, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
The following is meant as a real question without any prejudice:
How old a Xen version do we want to support in the Linux kernel?
- Only those being still maintained (meaning getting security fixes)
Defin
On 10/04/17 19:48, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> The following is meant as a real question without any prejudice:
>>>
>>> How old a Xen version do we want to support in the Linux kernel?
>>>
>>> - Only those being still maintained (meaning getting security fixes)
> Definitely not this. 4.4 is the olde
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:
>>
>> 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 wro
>> The following is meant as a real question without any prejudice:
>>
>> How old a Xen version do we want to support in the Linux kernel?
>>
>> - Only those being still maintained (meaning getting security fixes)
Definitely not this. 4.4 is the oldest version receiving official XSA
patches and i
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 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:
> >>
> >> On 10/04/17 15:47, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >>> On 04/07/2017 06:11 PM, Stefan
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:
>>
>> 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 wro
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:
>>
On 04/10/2017 09:57 AM, 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:
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Boris Ostrovsky 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:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/07/2017 07:58 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> t
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:
>>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 04/07/2017 07:58 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> tl;dr:
> Please apply
>
> da72ff5
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/07/2017 01:36 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >> On 04/07/2017 07:58 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>> tl;dr:
> >>> Please apply
> >>>
> >>> da72ff5bfcb02c6ac8b169a7cf597a3c8e6c4de1
> >>> partially
On 04/07/2017 01:36 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 04/07/2017 07:58 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> tl;dr:
>>> Please apply
>>>
>>> da72ff5bfcb02c6ac8b169a7cf597a3c8e6c4de1
>>> partially revert "xen: Remove event channel notification through
>>>
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/07/2017 07:58 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > tl;dr:
> > Please apply
> >
> > da72ff5bfcb02c6ac8b169a7cf597a3c8e6c4de1
> > partially revert "xen: Remove event channel notification through
> > Xen PCI platform device"
> >
> > to all stabl
On 04/07/2017 07:58 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> tl;dr:
> Please apply
>
> da72ff5bfcb02c6ac8b169a7cf597a3c8e6c4de1
> partially revert "xen: Remove event channel notification through
> Xen PCI platform device"
>
> to all stable branches which have a version of the original broken
> com
tl;dr:
Please apply
da72ff5bfcb02c6ac8b169a7cf597a3c8e6c4de1
partially revert "xen: Remove event channel notification through
Xen PCI platform device"
to all stable branches which have a version of the original broken
commit. This includes at least 4.9.y.
Background:
osstest s
26 matches
Mail list logo
