[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 14689: regressions - FAIL
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 14689: regressions - FAIL"): > So this is what really should not have happened past the > intended-to-be-final RC. Sorry about that. > How important is this change really to the 4.1 tree? I'd obviously > favor outright reverting it at this point (my understanding being > that the removal of the call to xs_rm() from libxl__device_destroy() > affected more than just tapdisk backends, which I guess was > assumed to be the case because of its neighboring with the call > to libxl__device_destroy_tapdisk()). Would that get the tree into > worse state that 4.1.3 was in? I think reverting it right now is the right thing to do and I will do that. We can then think about what to do next. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |