>>> On 03.05.16 at 11:36, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 02/05/16 13:55, Jan Beulich wrote: >> ... and hence should not live in the HVM part of the PV/HVM union. In >> fact it's not even architecture specific (there already is a per-arch >> extension type to it), so it gets moved out right to common struct >> domain. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > Yikes - this really does need fixing ASAP.
The more interesting question here is how to deal with the stable trees: The patch, due to its size, doesn't really lend itself to backporting. Yet the alternative (mentioned in a remark in the original submission) would be pretty clumsy too. Opinions? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
