Re: [PATCH 00/11] Alternate p2m: support multiple copies of host p2m

[Ed White <edmund.h.white@intel.com>]

> 
> I would have thought, from the tone of your earlier comments, that
> you were aiming for a bar somewhat higher than "as good as
> nestedp2m". :)  I hope you'll also understand that given how well that 
> has turned out, we shouldn't necessarily apply the same standard to
> new code as we did there.
> 

I absolutely am aiming for a higher bar. However, I'm mindful of
the fact that, at least to me, this seems to be a fairly significant
patch series, and although I have some minor patches in 4.5 I'm new
around here.

I've tried to make all my work consistent with existing code
and design in the same vein or same source file, regardless of my
opinion of that existing content, unless I had some compelling reason
not to. I've also tried not to touch anything that I didn't absolutely
have to touch (and as I've hinted, I'm not allowed to touch nested p2m).

I'm sure I haven't always succeeded, but that has been my intent.
My view was that this approach gave me the best chance of getting
the work accepted.

If I need to make more far-reaching changes (it occurs to me that
following the nested p2m model may have resulted in putting code
in p2m.c/h that should really be in p2m_ept.c/h, for example),
then I'm open to that, I'm just concerned that I'll be
criticized for not following existing style or being too
ambitious.

Ed