On 09/12/2019 12:11, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 06.12.2019 22:02, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 12/11/2019 14:03, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Bottom line - I'm half convinced and willing to give my ack, but >>> I'm not convinced you truly thought through the longer term >>> consequences. I'd therefore be far happier to see this patch >>> split into a non-controversial part (anything that's not tied to >>> the ACPI and EFI header imports), an ACPI, and an EFI part. >> I do not want to writing the same patch again in $N years time because >> review and CI missed it creeping back in. >> >> I don't think this is an unreasonable position to take. > It for sure isn't. Yet I also don't think though my request how to > split things is. By asking for the split I'm implying that we may > still reach agreement on the controversial parts, faod. Sadly once > again there are no other opinions helping to sort which route may > be the overall preferred one.
As Julien points out (and you not responded to his email) you have at no point actually requested a split. You merely suggested that you might be willing to ack 1/3 the patch, with the overt implication that objections would continue on the rest. This deadlock has gone on far too long. Therefore, you have until the end of the week to either: 1) Agree in principle that you will accept this patch (modulo tidy-up) split into 3 - i.e. that I won't be wasting my time doing so, or 2) Provide a concrete alternative which retains the property of being impossible for buggy constructs to find their way back into the codebase. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
