On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 13:55:33 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 10:17:46AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 13:08:19 -0300, Rafael Aquini <aquini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > As 'locking in balloon', may I assume the approach I took for the compaction case > > > is OK and aligned to address these concerns of yours? If not, do not hesitate in > > > giving me your thoughts, please. I'm respinning a V3 series to address a couple > > > of extra nitpicks from the compaction standpoint, and I'd love to be able to > > > address any extra concern you might have on the balloon side of that work. > > > > It's orthogonal, though looks like they clash textually :( > > > > I'll re-spin MST's patch on top of yours, and include both in my tree, > > otherwise linux-next will have to do the merge. But I'll await your > > push before pushing to Linus next merge window. > > > > Thanks, > > Rusty. > > While theoretical mine is a bugfix so could be 3.5 material, no? It's a little thin, but it's a good idea. I'll try. Cheers, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
