Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] argo: init, destroy and soft-reset, with enable command line opt

From: Christopher Clark <christopher.w.clark@gmail.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@gmail.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@gmail.com>,
	Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
	Rich Persaud <persaur@gmail.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>,
	Daniel Smith <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>,
	Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>,
	Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	James McKenzie <james@bromium.com>,
	Eric Chanudet <eric.chanudet@gmail.com>,
	Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] argo: init, destroy and soft-reset, with enable command line opt
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:56:13 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACMJ4GYDFckb3rwU7kunK6iwXkd3AHeCx8Z0QMsKfUxyHD9w9g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190114144655.enuxtrcihy3vjbjv@zion.uk.xensource.com>

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:47 AM Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> The locking scheme seems to be remaining sticking point. The rest are
> mostly cosmetic issues (FAOD, they still need to be addressed).  Frankly
> I don't think there is enough time to address all the technical details,
> but let me sum up each side's position and see if we can reach an
> amicable solution.
>
> From maintainers and reviewers' point of view:
>
> 1. Maintainers / reviewers don't like complexity unless absolutely
>    necessary.
> 2. Maintainers / reviewers feel they have a responsibility to understand
>    the code and algorithm.
>
> Yet being the gatekeepers doesn't necessarily mean we understand every
> technical details and every usecase. We would like to, but most of the
> time it is unrealistic.
>
> Down to this specific patch series:
>
> Roger thinks the locking scheme is too complex. Christopher argues
> that's necessary for short-live channels to be performant.
>
> Both have their point.
>
> I think having a complex locking scheme is inevitable, just like we did
> for performant grant table several years ago.  Regardless of the timing
> issue we have at hand, asking Christopher to implement a stripped down
> version creates more work for him.
>
> Yet ignoring Roger's concerns is unfair to him as well, since he put in
> so much time and effort to understand the algorithm and provide
> suggestions. It is in fact unreasonable to ask anyone to fully
> understand the locking mechanism and check the implementation is correct
> in a few days (given the series was posted in Dec and there were major
> holidays in between, plus everyone had other commitments).
>
> To unblock this, how about we make Christopher maintainer of Argo? He
> and OpenXT will be on the hook for further improvement. And I believe it
> would be in their best interest to keep Argo bug-free and eventually
> make it become supported.
>
> So:
>
> 1. Make sure Argo is self-contained -- this requires careful review for
>    interaction between Argo and other parts of the hypervisor.
> 2. Argo is going to be experimental and off-by-default -- this is the
>    default status for new feature anyway.
> 3. Make Christopher maintainer of Argo -- this would be a natural thing
>    to do anyway.
>

Wei,

do you have any feedback on the latest argo MAINTAINERS patch?

Christopher

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel