Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane. [and 1 more messages]

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:11:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested 
> Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring 
> XENVER_ but sane."):
> > On the other hand, I think there's a bit of a faulty interpretation of
> > the procedure here.  Jan reviewed the patch thoroughly and then acked
> > it; on the basis of that, Konrad legitimately checked it in.  After it
> > was checked in Jan said, "I've changed my mind and withdraw my Ack";
> > and the assumption of the subsequent conversation was that an ack
> > *can* be withdrawn after it has been legitimately checked in, and that
> > if no other Ack is supplied, then it must be reverted.
> > 
> > I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the rules.  Reviewers
> > in general, and maintainers in particular, should make reasonably sure
> > that they mean the Ack before they give it; and if they change their
> > mind after it has been legitimately checked in, then it's now up to
> > them to make the change they want to see according to the regular
> > procedure.
> 
> For the record, I agree completely with George here.  I was expecting
> that the next step would be to for Jan to post patches to revert the
> extra hypercall and replace it with something else.
> 
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:
> > And btw., considering that Konrad has already posted a revert patch,
> > and I have ack-ed that one, this could now go in right away (and the
> > discussion could either be settled or start over).
> 
> I don't see that patch you describe in my inbox, but maybe I have
> missed it.

It is part of my series. This is the revert (there are two of them)

http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-04/msg01913.html
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-04/msg01926.html

And then these two patches add build-id using the XENVER hypercall:

http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-04/msg01923.html
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-04/msg01902.html
> 
> If that reversion is proposed, following a request for a 2nd/3rd
> opinion from me and George, and given the discussion so far, I think
> that patch ought to have been CC'd to me and George.

Argh, I probably missed you and George on them. My apologies!
> 
> I don't think it would be appropriate to commit a revert except as
> part of a series which introduces an replacement way of providing the
> needed functionality - at least, enough functionality that in practice
> a plausibly long build-id can be retrieved.
> 
> If you want the original reverted, I think it is up to you, Jan, to
> provide (or procure) such a replacement.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian.

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