Re: [PATCH v2 07/12] x86/altp2m: add control of suppress_ve.

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

On 07/07/2015 03:10 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 07:43 PM, Ed White wrote:
>>> Introducing yet another layer -- particularly in a hooked interface like
>>> this -- just seems clunky.  It's not the worst thing in the world; if I
>>> thought this would be the difference between making it or not, I might
>>> just say fix it later.  But I don't think it will; and these little
>>> things add up.
>>>
>>
>> I don't want to change set/get everywhere, and Tim already made it clear
>> that coupling suppress_ve with p2m_type_t is not acceptable.
>>
>> How can I provide an implementation that does not do either of the above
>> but does allow access to suppress_ve in a way that is acceptable?
>>
>> Tell me and I will do it.
> 
> The only reason I can think that you don't want to change get/set is
> that you think it's too much work.
> 
> So here you go, I modified your patch; it took me 10 minutes, which is
> less than what it would have taken me to continue arguing with you.
> I've compile-tested it, but not done anything else (including porting
> subsequent patches onto it).
> 

I'm disappointed that you think that. I respect yours, Jan's, etc. role
as maintainers, and your absolute right to reject anything you think
is inappropriate. It's clear that Jan, and now apparently you, don't
respect my abilities or desire to do good work.

I won't make the changes you suggest because I don't think they
represent good design, and I don't think they are the right way to
solve the issue at hand.

I'm going to hand the Intel end of further discussions off to Ravi
Sahita.

Ed