Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9] new config option vtsc_tolerance_khz to avoid TSC emulation

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 03:25:36PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/01/2018 03:00 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 01.10.18 at 15:38, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 10/01/2018 12:25 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> I think the main concern
> >>> was with the way migration of the new value was implemented. But I
> >>> really have to defer to Andrew for that, irrespective of him not
> >>> having responded (on the list) to prior pings.
> >>
> >> Is Andrew really the only person who knows enough about migration to
> >> give this the thumbs-up?
> > 
> > That's not the point here, at least afaic: He had voiced _some_
> > concern on an earlier version. In such a case it is, I think, only
> > appropriate to wait with committing until there was indication
> > that the concerns were sufficiently addressed (verbally or by
> > adjustments to the code).
> 
> Right -- but it's not your job to make sure the migration stuff is
> properly addressed; it's Wei and Ian's job.  Wei's R-b was a statement
> from him that the code was good; when Andy questioned that, I think it
> was then *Wei's* job to address the question, not yours or Andy's (or
> even Olaf's).  If Wei says, "I've considered Andy's objections and I
> think the patch is fine as-is", then it can be checked in (given a
> reasonable amount of time for Andy to respond); and Wei can own whatever
> consequences there are.

This patch touched more than toolstack code, that's why Jan gave his R-b
in the first place.

The contention is not on the correctness of the code, but on if this
mechanism had unintended consequences. Both Jan and I thought the code
was correct, but we didn't feel comfortable enough to ignore objections.

Sorry Olaf.

Wei.

> 
>  -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel