Ross Lagerwall writes ("Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] xen: xen-domid-restrict
improvements"):
> What's the status of this patch series? There don't seem to be many
> outstanding complaints but they haven't been pushed into master. At
> least the Xen changes have all been reviewed by Anthony (except for
>
On 10/20/2017 02:37 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Anthony PERARD writes ("Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] xen: xen-domid-restrict
improvements"):
The patches in this v5 appear to be the same the one from the patch
series v4.
Erk, so they are.
I'll post a v5.1 in reply to this email.
What's the status of this
Hi,
This series seems to have some coding style problems. See output below for
more information:
Type: series
Message-id: 1508431916-9412-1-git-send-email-ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com
Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 0/8] xen: xen-domid-restrict improvements
=== TEST SCRIPT BEGIN ===
#!/bin/bash
Anthony PERARD writes ("Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] xen: xen-domid-restrict
improvements"):
> The patches in this v5 appear to be the same the one from the patch
> series v4.
Erk, so they are.
I'll post a v5.1 in reply to this email.
Ian.
Hi Ian,
The patches in this v5 appear to be the same the one from the patch
series v4.
--
Anthony PERARD
no-re...@patchew.org writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 0/8] xen:
xen-domid-restrict improvements"):
> This series seems to have some coding style problems. See output below for
> more information:
No, it doesn't have coding style problems. At least, this mail
contains onl
I have been working on trying to get qemu, when running as a Xen
device model, to _actually_ not have power equivalent to root.
I think I have achieved this, with some limitations (which are
discussed in my series against xen.git.
However, there are changes to qemu needed. In particular
* The
