Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] mem_access: sanitize code around sending vm_event request

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hello Tamas,

On 04/08/16 17:12, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 8:10 AM, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 03/08/16 17:31, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> > > I understand and that's fine. However, for our components we may
> > > prefer a different style of workflow on occasion as our definition of
> > > what constitutes difficult-to-review might be different. That's why
> > > moving it out from the common p2m codebase should help with avoiding
> > > this type of arguments in the future and also remove the burden of
> > > having to have maintainers of other components review it either though
> > > it doesn't touch anything outside of what we are maintaining.
> > Well you still need to get an ack from someone even if it only touches
> > code that you maintain.
> Yes, but we would have been done with this patch days ago as the other
> maintainer of this component, Razvan, has already acked it days ago.
I think this is the first time we had an issue about the workflow. All 
the other comments on separate series were valid and related to 
interaction with the hardware and the rest of the code.
I think this is a good idea to move memaccess code out of the P2M code 
(see [1]), however this should not be done only because we differ about 
the workflow. Whilst I agree you know really well the interaction of 
memaccess with the userspace, I have got some concerns about your 
knowledge of the ARM architecture.
Your last few contributions (SMC trapping, VM event set/get registers 
and memaccess race condition) led to prolonged discussion about how the 
platform behaves.
Regards,

[1] 
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-08/msg00037.html
--
Julien Grall

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