From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754373AbZB1J5b (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:57:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752096AbZB1J5W (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:57:22 -0500 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:37395 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750767AbZB1J5W (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:57:22 -0500 Message-ID: <49A90A7E.10101@goop.org> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:57:18 -0800 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Andrew Morton , "H. Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Xen-devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support References: <1235786365-17744-1-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <20090227212812.26d02f34.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <49A8DF28.4050301@goop.org> <20090228072055.GC9351@elte.hu> <49A8F04D.4090409@goop.org> <20090228083621.GC11425@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20090228083621.GC11425@elte.hu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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