Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] make blkback driver handle trim request

[Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/08/2011 14:58, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>> On 10.08.11 at 15:45, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 12:40 +0100, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>>> Also: Shouldn't this be against upstream Linux 3.x these days, aswell,
>>> now when both blkback and blkfront are upstream?
>> 
>> Yes, please.
>> 
>> Ideally we would insist that patches to those classic-Xen trees which
>> are still somewhat maintained be sent to upstream first where applicable
>> (i.e. only accept "backports" or classic-Xen specific bug fixes).
> 
> Ideally yes. But that's not generally feasible, at least not always. For
> instance, I'm glad if I can keep on top of all the things needed for our
> kernels and hypervisors, and I would at best find time to compile test
> code for pv-ops. But with only that I certainly shouldn't really submit
> anything...

I suspect that by now you are the only direct consumers of 2.6.18-xen. Is
there really any benefit to keeping the public tree now? Only you commit to
it; I expect only you directly inherit from it (others might indirectly, I
accept). I really don't think we should be tempting anyone else to actually
*use* it as is. Hence my conclusion we could just delete the damn thing.

 -- Keir

> Jan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel