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

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

Jan Beulich wrote on 2014-09-18:
>>>> 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

The patch is applied at

commit 077fc1c04d70ef1748ac2daa6622b3320a1a004c
Author: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Thu Feb 13 15:50:22 2014 +0000

And you comment is gived at 
"Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:55:43 +0000"

> - you remaining silent - the patch got applied under the assumption
> that without your objection you accepted the work item.

I have explained this several months ago. I don't want to say it again.

> 
>> 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

XSA-59 involved hardware guys input and I think Don gave the update on regular 
weekly meeting.

> 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

Again, Don's meeting minutes said we are having some divergences internally and 
it is still in discussion. You can certainly complain the slow response but it 
is not a 'promise' thing.

> 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


Best regards,
Yang



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