Re: KVM call minutes for Sept 21

[Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 09:20:38PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> 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?
> 
As I wrote in another mail I want event injection to be more close to
what SVM does. All well maintained code improves with time rare parts
are reworked even if maintained. Nadav said that he doesn't even know
how this part of code is working. This is worrying.

--
			Gleb.