Re: [PATCH v4 06/11] vpci/header: handle p2m range sets per BAR

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 19.11.2021 13:50, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 19.11.21 14:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 19.11.2021 13:13, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>> On 19.11.21 14:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 05.11.2021 07:56, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of handling a single range set, that contains all the memory
>>>>> regions of all the BARs and ROM, have them per BAR.
>>>> Iirc Roger did indicate agreement with the spitting. May I nevertheless
>>>> ask that for posterity you say a word here about the overhead, to make
>>>> clear this was a conscious decision?
>>> Sure, but could you please help me with that sentence to please your
>>> eye? I mean that it was you seeing the overhead while I was not as
>>> to implement the similar functionality as range sets do I still think we'll
>>> duplicate range sets at the end of the day.
>> "Note that rangesets were chosen here despite there being only up to
>> <N> separate ranges in each set (typically just 1)." Albeit that's
>> then still lacking a justification for the choice. Ease of
>> implementation?
> I guess yes. I'll put:
> 
> "Note that rangesets were chosen here despite there being only up to
> <N> separate ranges in each set (typically just 1). But rangeset per BAR
> was chosen for the ease of implementation and existing code re-usability."

FTAOD please don't forget to replace the <N> - I wasn't sure if it would
be 2 or 3. Also (nit) I don't think starting the 2nd sentence with "But
..." fits with the 1st sentence.

Jan