Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 14689: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Jackson writes ("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.

Now done.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel