Re: [PATCH v4 06/17] virt: acrn: Introduce VM management interfaces

Shuo A Liu
2020-09-30T02:49:37Z

On Mon 28.Sep'20 at 14:26:02 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 02:29:34PM +0800, Shuo A Liu wrote:
>> On Mon 28.Sep'20 at 7:25:16 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:50:30AM +0800, Shuo A Liu wrote:
>> > > > > + write_lock_bh(&acrn_vm_list_lock);
>> > > > > + list_add(&vm->list, &acrn_vm_list);
>> > > > > + write_unlock_bh(&acrn_vm_list_lock);
>> > > >
>> > > > Why are the _bh() variants being used here?
>> > > >
>> > > > You are only accessing this list from userspace context in this patch.
>> > > >
>> > > > Heck, you aren't even reading from the list, only writing to it...
>> > >
>> > > acrn_vm_list is read in a tasklet which dispatch I/O requests and is wrote
>> > > in VM creation ioctl. Use the rwlock mechanism to protect it.
>> > > The reading operation is introduced in the following patches of this
>> > > series. So i keep the lock type at the moment of introduction.
>> >
>> > Ok, but think about someone trying to review this code. Does this lock
>> > actually make sense here? No, it does not. How am I supposed to know
>> > to look at future patches to determine that it changes location and
>> > usage to require this?
>>
>> OK. May i know how to handle such kind of code submission? Or which way
>> following do you prefer?
>> 1) Use a mutex lock here, then change it to rwlock in a later patch
>> of this series.
>
>Wouldn't this make more sense if you had to read these one after
>another?

OK. I will change to mutex firstly for more readable.

>
>> 2) Add more comments in changelog about the lock. (Now, there is
>> comment around the acrn_vm_list_lock)
>
>It's hard to verify a comment's statement without digging through other
>patches in the series, right? You want the reviewer to just trust you?
>:)
>
>Again, what would _YOU_ want to see if you had to review this?
>
>> > That's just not fair, would you want to review something like this?
>> >
>> > And a HUGE meta-comment, again, why am I the only one reviewing this
>> > stuff? Why do you have a ton of Intel people on the Cc: yet it is, once
>> > again, my job to do this?
>>
>> The patchset has been reviewed in Intel's internal mailist several
>> rounds and got Reviewed-by: before send out. That's why i Cced many
>> Intel people as well.
>
>Then why didn't any of those intel people on the cc: actually review it
>after you have sent it out? Why is it only me? Do I need to wait
>longer for them to get to this? I'll gladly do so next time...
>
>> This patchset is all about a common driver for the ACRN hypervisor
>> support. I put the code in drivers/virt/ and found you are one of the
>> maintainer of vboxguest driver which is in the same subdirectory. I
>> thought you should be the right person to be Cced when i submitted this
>> series.
>
>I am, I'm not complaining about that. I'm complaining that it seems to
>be _only_ me reviewing this here, and not any of the people you are cc:ing
>from intel. Most of those people should be giving you this same type of
>review comments and not forcing an external person to do so, right?
>
>> Certainly, any comments are welcome. And really appreciate your review
>> and help. I have little experience to submit a new driver to the
>> community, my apologies if thing goes wrong.
>
>You didn't do anything wrong, I'm arguing about the larger meta-issue I
>have right now with Intel and the lack of reviews that seems to happen
>from other Intel people on their co-workers patches.
>
>Anyway, you are doing fine, it's an iterative process, hopefully you can
>also review other people's patches in this area that are being posted as
>well.

Sorry, i have no answer about some of your question above. :(
However, i will try my best to help review other people's patches in
this area.

Thanks
shuo