Re: [RFC 07/55] KVM: arm/arm64: Add virtual EL2 state emulation framework

[Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>]

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:18:08PM -0400, Bandan Das wrote:
> Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org> writes:
> 
> > [off list]
> 
> Please keep discussions on list.
> ...
> > No, it's actually not.  You can have entries, which are the same, and
> > entire tables where the guest's page table happen to be the same as what
> > gets put in the shadow page table.  I've worked on hypervisors where
> > this was always pretty much the case, because memory was segmented and
> > physical addresses were exposed to the guest.
> 
> Ok cool, I believe you!
> 
> > I don't need a lecture from you about how shadow page tables work.
> >
> 
> Go back to the review I posted. I merely asked if using "shadow" in the name could
> be confusing 

And that was just fine.

> > Nevertheless, I was just trying to explain our rationale for choosing
> > the word shadow in our naming, and I suggest in the future you make
> > constructive comments with suggesting a better name, instead of pointing
> > out your dissatiscation, which is not helpful.
> >

[...]

> >
> > I've lost track of what you're refering to.  If there is a problem with
> > these patches, please comment on that in the right context.  But, this
> > is an RFC, lots of things will change, and you would provide a more
> > helpful code review by focusing on overall design issues etc. at this
> > point.
> 
> I know this is a RFC. Changes to RFC include small changes too like
> being consistent with using one type or the other.

I just didn't want you to waste time on reviewing details thay may
change, prematurely, that's all.  And I honestly didn't know what you
were referring to, and didn't want to go over a very large RFC patch set
to find a typedef or missing typedef.  Maybe I should have.

> If you don't want that
> in your reviews, that's fine too.
> 

Anyone can comment on anything they like in a review.

> 
> >> As for the argument, typedefs for structs are
> >> discouraged as part of the coding style.
> >> 
> > Please...
> >
> > I encourage you to consider your audience.  I don't think you
> > need to lecture me on the Linux kernel coding style.
> 
> I encourage you too to take a review as a review and not as a judgement of your
> knowledge of the coding style or other abilities. You are discouraging people
> from jumping in.
> 

That was not my intention.

> 
> I started discussing with Jintack and reviewing this series so that I can understand
> it better. If I have to constantly think that with every sentence I write I am judging
> someone's abilities, or that I have to follow someone's rulebook for constructive comments,
> well, thanks and good luck!

What can I say.  I of course don't have a rulebook. I did not find your
tone friendly or the review particularly helpful, but I'll try to be
more patient next time.

-Christoffer