Re: [PATCH 11/20] PVH xen: introduce pvh.c

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:00:44 +0100
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 16.05.13 at 03:42, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
> >>> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> > @@ -1129,6 +1129,10 @@ arch_do_vcpu_op(
> >          struct domain *d = v->domain;
> >          struct vcpu_register_vcpu_info info;
> >  
> > +        rc = -ENOSYS;
> > +        if ( is_pvh_vcpu(current) )
> > +            break;
> > +
> 
> Assuming this is meant to be temporary - yes, this _might_ be
> acceptable (if accompanied by a proper comment). But then again
> registering vCPU info is a pretty basic interface (which recently
> got even moved into common code iirc), so I'm having a hard time
> seeing why you need to suppress it rather than make it work from
> the beginning.

Because I am not as smart as you, and my brain gets full sooner :). I
only know to do big features in pieces. As it is already, each refresh
costs me days to merge, resolving conflicts, looking at code to see what
changed, etc.. then almost always something breaks, and takes a while
to debug. I got linux side patch to watch out too.

My understanding with previous maintainers was, establish a baseline with
something working, then keep adding bells and whistles to it. This is an
effort to that end. I am also OK dropping the ball on pvh and let
someones else who can finish it all in one shot do it.

Thanks again for all your time and input, you are thorough :).

Mukesh