From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/30] nVMX: Nested VMX, v9 Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 11:20:28 +0300 Message-ID: <20110511082027.GG19019@redhat.com> References: <1304842511-nyh@il.ibm.com> <4DC7CD81.2070305@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Nadav Har'El" , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:16163 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753775Ab1EKPiS (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2011 11:38:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DC7CD81.2070305@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 02:18:25PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Okay, truly excellent. The code is now a lot more readable, and I'm > almost beginning to understand it. The code comments are also very > good, I wish we had the same quality comments in the rest of kvm. > We can probably merge the next iteration if there aren't significant > comments from others. > I still feel that interrupt injection path should be reworked to be SVM like before merging the code. > The only worrying thing is the issue you raise in patch 8. Is there > a simple fix you can push that addresses correctness? > > -- > I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this > signature is too narrow to contain. -- Gleb.