> > If the root complaint is that "customers think that anything set in > > .config is a supported feature", then the solutions are to support > > all > > the features in .config, re-educate the customers that they're wrong, > > or > > maintain a local patch to do this stuff. > > If only re-educating people was free, like preempting questions is. > Local patches are of course always an option, and perhaps in this > case it's the best one. However, I think we already made a case for > better xen configurability for the driver domains, so I'm not 100% Could you repost those backend patches please? At this point I am not sure which one we have discarded? > convinced my initial patch (making dom0 configurable) isn't worthy > of upstream. Also, I didn't see any comments on my v2[*] of that > patch, which I believe satisfies the menu complexity issue and > brings in more configurability. That said, I'm about to reply to > that patch myself, since there's an issue with it. > > Drew > > [*] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.virtualization/14635 > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
