From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Tiejun" Subject: Re: [v6][PATCH 2/2] xen:vtd: missing RMRR mapping while share EPT Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:01:08 +0800 Message-ID: <5418DD54.40204@intel.com> References: <53DB62EA.4090502@intel.com> <53DBB691020000780002875B@mail.emea.novell.com> <53DDED01.7000607@intel.com> <53DF53070200007800028CF1@mail.emea.novell.com> <5406E23B.9020806@intel.com> <540701610200007800030254@mail.emea.novell.com> <541294FB.2020202@intel.com> <5412BAA9020000780003452D@mail.emea.novell.com> <5412AE69.6050300@intel.com> <20140912212612.GA72288@deinos.phlegethon.org> <54179136.6020109@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54179136.6020109@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tim Deegan , Lars Kurth , Jan Beulich Cc: yang.z.zhang@intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, "lars.kurth@xen.org" , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 2014/9/16 9:24, Chen, Tiejun wrote: > On 2014/9/13 5:26, Tim Deegan wrote: >> At 09:59 -0700 on 12 Sep (1410512391), Lars Kurth wrote: >>> On 12 Sep 2014, at 01:27, Chen, Tiejun wrote: >>>> On 2014/9/12 15:19, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> So I still hope we can issue such a vote on these two patches if >>>>>> possible. >>> There are several ways we can do this: >>> * Jan and Tim can ask the other committers for an opinion (either >>> publicly on the list - ideally related to this thread for >>> traceability - or privately depending on preference) and one may >>> change their opinion based on what the others say >>> * As there is also a potential risk element for the 4.5 release >>> Jan/Tim could ask the Release Manager for an opinion too and take >>> that into account >>> * Jan/Tim can ask the Project Lead (aka Keir) to make a decision : in >>> other words as peers they both agree to disagree and ask Keir to act >>> as referee. >> >> Actually I don't think we need to go so far. I'm happy to defer to Jan's >> judgement on this; we ought to sort out RMRRs properly. > > Jan, > > What's your last judgement? > > Could we apply these two separate patches in advance? I think actually > they aren't blocking the remains what we tried to do in another RFC > series, but now we really need them to make sure GFX passthrough can > work well. > > For that RFC I have to take more time to cover all scenarios, so as you > saw its really a slow process I can push forward. Any consideration? Thanks Tiejun > > Thanks > Tiejun > >> >> My apologies for not following this thread closely enough; I hadn't >> realised I was causing such a disagreement. (In my defence I wasn't CC'd >> until now.) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tim. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel > >