From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: KVM call minutes for Sept 21 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:20:38 +0200 Message-ID: <20100922192038.GK15338@8bytes.org> References: <20100921180506.GI28009@x200.localdomain> <20100922000438.GA2844@fermat.math.technion.ac.il> <20100922090248.GD11145@redhat.com> <20100922162900.GA12492@fermat.math.technion.ac.il> <20100922174706.GA18005@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nadav Har'El , Chris Wright , kvm@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: Received: from 8bytes.org ([88.198.83.132]:52006 "EHLO 8bytes.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754866Ab0IVTUk (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:20:40 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100922174706.GA18005@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:47:06PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:29:00PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote: > > In any case, while I obviously agree that it's your prerogative not to merge > > code that you consider ugly, I still don't see any particular problem to start > > with the current, working, code, and fix it later. It's not like we can never > > change this code after it's in - it's clearly marked with if(nested) and > > doesn't effect anything in the non-nested path. > > > After code it merged there is much less incentive to change things > drastically. I think nested svm is a good counter example to that. It has drastically improved since it was merged. Ok, it hasn't _changed_ drastically, but what drastic changes do we expect to become necessary in the nested-vmx code? Joerg