From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ed White Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/13] x86/altp2m: basic data structures and support routines. Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:52:31 -0700 Message-ID: <559AB24F.2040109@intel.com> References: <1435774177-6345-1-git-send-email-edmund.h.white@intel.com> <1435774177-6345-6-git-send-email-edmund.h.white@intel.com> <5596B6E2.7010601@citrix.com> <559A6CFE020000780008C926@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <559A6CFE020000780008C926@mail.emea.novell.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: Jan Beulich Cc: Tim Deegan , RaviSahita , Wei Liu , George Dunlap , Andrew Cooper , Ian Jackson , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, tlengyel@novetta.com, Daniel De Graaf List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/06/2015 02:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 03.07.15 at 18:22, wrote: >> On 01/07/15 19:09, Ed White wrote: >>> Add the basic data structures needed to support alternate p2m's and >>> the functions to initialise them and tear them down. >>> >>> Although Intel hardware can handle 512 EPTP's per hardware thread >>> concurrently, only 10 per domain are supported in this patch for >>> performance reasons. >>> >>> The iterator in hap_enable() does need to handle 512, so that is now >>> uint16_t. >>> >>> This change also splits the p2m lock into one lock type for altp2m's >>> and another type for all other p2m's. The purpose of this is to place >>> the altp2m list lock between the types, so the list lock can be >>> acquired whilst holding the host p2m lock. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ed White >> >> Only some style issues. Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper >> > > To be honest, with coding style issues having been pointed out > before, them left un-addressed in more just an occasional instance > moves me towards ignoring such a submission altogether. Please > help reviewers and maintainers by addressing _all_ of them even > if only a few (or just one) got pointed out during review. This also > helps you by avoiding to do another round just for addressing > these. See my reply to Andrew. If I've written the code so that it conforms to the style of the existing code in that area, and no-one has specifically asked me to change it (which they had not in this case), why would I think it needs changing? Ed