Re: [Xen-devel] [v6][PATCH 2/2] xen:vtd: missing RMRR mapping while share EPT

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 18.09.14 at 04:02, <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>[...]
> You didn't object my comment, and the patch was applied to Xen.
> 
> Later, you gave the comment:
> "I should also say that while I certainly understand the argumentation 
> above, I would still want to go this route only with the promise that B is 
> going to be worked on reasonably soon after the release, ideally with the 
> goal of backporting the changes for 4.4.1."

No, the order of things was that the comment was given first, and then
- you remaining silent - the patch got applied under the assumption that
without your objection you accepted the work item.

> I really think you need to apology to all Intel developers for saying such 
> irresponsible words to Intel over and over again.

I don't think so - the lack of objection on your part meant silent
agreement to me (and I think to Tim too). It's certainly unfortunate
if your implication of silence is a different one than mine, but I'm
afraid we both have to live with that. So I apologize for not taking
possible cultural differences into account. Yet I guess you agree
that with email being the communication medium there is _no_ way
to _enforce_ a response by someone, and hence we have to rely
on people responding where necessary (leaving room for
interpretation otherwise).

Apart from that, looking at how slowly more involved things (XSA-59
being a very prominent recent example, and the continuing lack of
any kind of action towards properly dealing with the ATS related
invalidation timeouts being another, and these certainly not being the
only ones) go when Intel input is required, the issue of accepting any
kinds of promises towards future work is clearly broader than just the
one issue referred to above.

Jan


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