Re: [Xen-devel] [V10 PATCH 12/23] PVH xen: Support privileged op emulation for PVH

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, George Dunlap
<George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Again, wouldn't it be better to rename read_desrciptor to
>>> pv_read_descriptor(), name this one pvh_read_desrciptor(), give them a
>>> similar function signature (e.g., have both take a which_sel and have
>>> it look up the selector itself), rather than have this
>>> one-function-calls-another-function thing?
>>
>> If you go back to where we discussed this in previous reviews, it
>> is being done this way because of other callers of read_descriptor
>> that don't need to be changed to pass enum x86_segment.
>
> OK, first, like I said, I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to look at
> this before, and in general it's totally fair for you to say "we
> talked about this already".

Although, on second thought, it may not be fair after all: all the
necessary information to understand why the change was made should be
in the commit message, not just for stragglers like me, but for
archaeologists going back to figure out why the code is the way it is.
 It's not fair to expect them to go back and read the entire 7-month
saga to figure out what's going on.

That said, I can understand why you may be frustrated with someone
coming in at the 11th hour and having a bunch of criticisms and
questions.  I am sorry that's the way it turned out.  Nonetheless, my
comments stand.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel