Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] VMX: Eliminate cr3 save/loading exiting when UG enabled

["Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich wrote on 2013-12-18:
>>>> On 18.12.13 at 11:23, "Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Jan Beulich wrote on 2013-12-18:
>>>>>> On 18.12.13 at 05:00, Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> From: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> 
>>>> With the feature of unrestricted guest, there should no vmexit be
>>>> triggered when guest accesses the cr3 in non-paging mode.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> changes in v2:
>>>> Fix the guest boot failure on non-UG platform.
>>>> 
>>>> The previous patch doesn't consider the non-UG platform and will
>>>> cause guest boot failure on non-ug platform.
>>> 
>>> Which "previous patch"? This one being v2, yet there not being a v1
>>> with the same title on the list back until the beginning of October,
>>> what you say here is rather confusing. Please be a little more
>>> considerate of other people's time and provide more precise
>>> information: If a patch needing fixing went in already, name its
>>> commit ID and title. If the patch needing fixing didn't go in yet,
>>> integrate the fix with that patch (or series) and submit a new
>>> version. And if you post a v2 of a patch under a different title than
>>> the v1 was posted, please provide enough information to be able to
>>> identify that
>> patch.
>> 
>> Don't know why you cannot find the first patch:
>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/xen/devel/302810
> 
> Note the subject difference: "VMX: Eliminate cr3 store/load vmexit
> when UG enabled" there vs "VMX: Eliminate cr3 save/loading exiting when UG 
> enabled"
> here. I searched the list archives for "save/loading".
> 
> Furthermore, you submitted v2 with the same description as v1, even
> though a correction was already suggested. You should incorporate such
> feedback rather than leaving it to the maintainers. I'll be looking
> forward to see a v3, hopefully within less than almost 2 months (as
> was the case for v2 compared to v1, not making the tracking of it easier 
> either).
> 

First, you found the regression on 30 Dec. So there is no 2 months until v2. 
Second, everyone may take vacation or focus on new field and delay a task for 
long time or never pick it up again. Third, I don't think there are any rule 
that patch must send out between one or two months.

> Finally on the earlier thread you suggested that you'd have this go
> through a full round of testing - nothing in that regard was said here...
> 

I said " I will ask our QA to do a full testing against this patch to see 
whether it introduces any regression" not "we already finished a full round 
testing and didn't see any regression". And our QA also saw the issue when 
Xen's automatic testing bot reported the bug. What you want me to said here?

> Jan


Best regards,
Yang


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