From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/HVM: atomically access pointers in
 bufioreq handling
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:09:58 +0100
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507231109260.17378__5859.33135957948$1437646372$gmane$org@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
References: <5582E14F0200007800086A37@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1507201723370.17378@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<55AFBEDC020000780009417A@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1507221505370.17378@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<55AFD416020000780009426D@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1507221649060.17378@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<55B0ADA70200007800094589@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1507231103480.17378@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=63983518b=Stefano.Stabellini@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZIDTB-0004Zl-2e
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:11:17 +0000
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507231103480.17378@kaball.uk.xensource.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: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 22.07.15 at 19:24, <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > > I'll queue this change up for the next QEMU release cycle.
> > 
> > Thanks - v2 (with the adjusted description) just sent.
> > 
> > It would however be nice for our variant in 4.6 to also gain this,
> > perhaps independent of upstream's schedule.
> 
> Is the hypervisor side going to go in 4.6? Do we need a freeze
> exception or do we consider this a bug fix?

Never mind, I have seen it is already in.