From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [v7][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: skip reserved
	ranges
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:04:23 +0800
Message-ID: <55A62217.70602@intel.com>
References: <1436420047-25356-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<1436420047-25356-7-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<55A3D5600200007800090330@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55A4AE88.2000200@intel.com>
	<55A4F2270200007800090834@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55A4EA54.60708@intel.com>
	<55A5138F0200007800090A71@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55A5AF6F.1050305@intel.com>
	<55A636C202000078000911E9@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <55A636C202000078000911E9@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>> Certainly appreciate your time.
>>
>> I didn't mean its wasting time at this point. I just want to express
>> that its hard to implement that solution in one or two weeks to walking
>> into 4.6 as an exception.
>>
>> Note I know this feature is still not accepted as an exception to 4.6
>> right now so I'm making an assumption.
>
> After all this is a bug fix (and would have been allowed into 4.5 had
> it been ready in time), so doesn't necessarily need a freeze
> exception (but of course the bar raises the later it gets). Rather

Yes, this is not a bug fix again into 4.6.

> than rushing in something that's cumbersome to maintain, I'd much
> prefer this to be done properly.
>

Indeed, we'd like to finalize this properly as you said. But apparently 
time is not sufficient to allow this happened. So I just suggest we can 
further seek the best solution in next phase.

Thanks
Tiejun