Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 11/13] x86/altp2m: define and implement alternate p2m HVMOP types.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 07.07.15 at 01:40, <tlengyel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  I believe, unless Tamas says otherwise, that we agreed the
>> HVMOP's in question and their implementations are sufficiently
>> different that we should not merge them.
> 
> 
> I'm still not entirely convinced of this being the case but considering
> altp2m will be an experimental feature I'm not going to hold this against
> it being merged for 4.6. Hopefully things will be ironed out more as we go
> forward and start using it for real.

Experimental or not - as long as this is not self contained code, but
has modifications scattered around, it imo can't be subject to
relaxation due to being experimental.

Yet your reply reminds me to clarify an earlier reply of mine: While
I'm in agreement with Andrew regarding the single HVMOP aspect,
I have no particular requirements whether to unify certain functions
(i.e. I'd leave the decision to accept the possibly resulting code
duplication to the respective maintainers [vm-event and x86/mm
iirc what code is being affected]).

Jan


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