Re: [RFC 16/16] lpfc: vmid: Introducing vmid in io path.

From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Muneendra Kumar M <muneendra.kumar@broadcom.com>,
	James Smart <james.smart@broadcom.com>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
	emilne@redhat.com, mkumar@redhat.com,
	Gaurav Srivastava <gaurav.srivastava@broadcom.com>,
	James Smart <jsmart2021@gmail.com>,
	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 16/16] lpfc: vmid: Introducing vmid in io path.
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 15:32:38 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200806193238.GH4520@mtj.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a2522463-daf1-ea45-1dbc-2e31eb8bced2@redhat.com>

On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 09:20:38PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 06/08/20 20:49, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> perf and bpf have file descriptors, system calls and data structures of
> >> their own, here there is simply none: it's just an array of chars.  Can
> >> you explain _why_ it doesn't fit in the cgroupfs?
> > What's the hierarchical or delegation behavior?
> 
> If a cgroup does not have an app identifier the driver should use the
> one from the closes parent that has one.
> 
> > Why do the vast majority of
> > people who don't have the hardware or feature need to see it? We can argue
> > but I can pretty much guarantee that the conclusion is gonna be the same and
> > it's gonna be a waste of time and energy for both of us.
> 
> I don't want to argue, I want to understand.  My standard is that a
> maintainer that rejects code explains a plan for integrating with his
> subsystem and/or points to existing code that does something similar,
> rather than handwaving it away as something "that I can't remember off
> the top of my head".

I could be misreading you but my general sense is that you tend to be
antagonistic in sometimes underhanded way, like above - you lifted that part
from a sentence which was listing two examples prior to that phrase. That's
an disingenious way to discuss regardless of the topic. To put in your way,
I find your way of communication failing to meet my standard for productive
discussions.

I've given brief reasons why I don't think it fits. If anyone else wants to
discuss that further, please raise it. I'd be happy to discuss. Paolo, if
I'm misunderstanding you, my aplogies but otherwise please do better.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun