[Cc-list trimmed]
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 16:01 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 25/10/16 09:18, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> Do you want to send such a patch, or would you prefer it if I tried
> to
> write something up?
>
Here:
https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-11/msg00144.html
For
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 16:01 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 25/10/16 09:18, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > All this being said, what's the next step? Is there anything more I
> > should do, here in this thread? Should we wait for other people to
> > weigh in? Should I resend this patch, with a non empt
On 25/10/16 09:18, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 11:42 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 14/10/16 11:17, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli
>>
>> We don't have a general framework for declaring things "supported"
>> yet,
>> and at the moment we only have a
On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 11:42 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 14/10/16 11:17, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli
>
> We don't have a general framework for declaring things "supported"
> yet,
> and at the moment we only have a single level of "supported", which
> includes
On 14/10/16 11:17, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli
We don't have a general framework for declaring things "supported" yet,
and at the moment we only have a single level of "supported", which
includes XSAs. I do think it makes sense to include an assessment of
the security r
>>> On 14.10.16 at 12:17, wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli
I have to admit that I would have expected a non-empty description,
at least briefly rationalizing the change of state.
Jan
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://l
