[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49A90A7E.10101@goop.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:57:18 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> This means that the "massive out-of-tree patches which doesn't
> make anyone happy" argument above is really ... a hiperbole and
> should be replaced with: "small, unintrusive out-of-tree patch"?
Well at the moment we're in the "doesn't make anybody happy" state. The
dom0 changes I have are, I'll admit, non-trivial. I don't think they're
unreasonable or particularly intrusive, but they are large enough to be
awkward to maintain out of tree. What I'm looking to achieve now is to
get enough into the kernel so that the remaining patches are a "small
unintrusive out-of-tree patch" (but ultimately I'd like to get
everything in).
But I think that's sort of beside the point. Its not like we're talking
about something extremely obscure here; these changes do serve a large
existing user-base. The (often repeated) kernel policy is "merge it".
I'm happy to talk about the specifics of how all this stuff can be made
to fit together - and whether the current approach is OK or if something
else would be better, but ultimately I think this functionality does
belong in mainline.
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists