[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] On setting clear criteria for declaring a feature acceptable (was "vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling")
- To: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:30:48 +0000
- Cc: Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, Feng Wu <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:30:52 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:02 PM, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/03/16 16:23, George Dunlap wrote:
>>
>> I don't know why this is controversial -- this seems obvious to me.
>> What do other committers / maintainers think?
>
> I started on a reply to this but then I went back and read the original
> thread...
>
> + /*
> + * XXX: The length of the list depends on how many vCPU is current
> + * blocked on this specific pCPU. This may hurt the interrupt
> + * latency if the list grows to too many entries.
> + */
>
> Even the original author knows that there's a problem here, so in this
> case George, I think you are unfairly criticizing Jan.
Yes, as Feng points out, that comment was put there because Jan made
it a prerequisite for acceptance, not because Feng had concrete reason
to believe there was a potential problem. I don't have any objection
to that in general, *as long as* it's accompanied by actionable
suggestions for evaluating whether it's true and/or fixing it.
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
