Re: [v4][PATCH 11/19] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>]

>> in high level I have to say Yes. If you really read that v2 design and
>> its associated discussion, you should notice I didn't put any response
>> right there.
>
> Look, I'm getting a bit angry at your continual implication that I

Sorry to this.

> haven't put in enough work reading the background for this series.  If
> you go back and look at the v2 design discussion, you'll see that I was
> actively involved in that discussion, and sent at least a dozen emails
> about it.  I have now spent nearly two full days just on this series,

Sure and thanks for your review and time.

> including going back over lots of conversations that have happened
> before to find answers to questions which you could have given in a
> single line; and also to check assertions that you've made which have
> turned out to be false.
>
> In the v2 design discussion, the only thing I could find regarding the
> relationship between per-device settings and the domain-wide setting was
> as where you said [1]:
>
> "per-device override is always favored if a conflicting setting in
> rmrr_host."
>
> And in v2, Wei asked you [2]:
>
> "But this only works with global configuration and individual
> configuration in PCI spec trumps this, right?"
>
> And you responded [3]:
>
> "You're right."
>
> Now it happens that in all those cases you were literally talking about
> the rmrr_host part of the configuration, not the strict/relaxed part of
> the configuration; but that doesn't even make sense, since there *is* no
> device-specific rmrr_host setting -- the only configuration which has
> both a domain-wide and per-device component is the relaxed/strict.
>
> So:
>
> 1. After spending yet another half hour doing research, I haven't found
> any discussion that concluded we should have the global policy override
> the local policy

I also took some time to go back checking this point and indeed this is 
not in that public design. And as I mentioned in another email which is 
following this, I also had a talk to Kevin about this issue, and looks 
this is just concluded from our internal discussion and he didn't post 
this in v2 design again because as you know, that design is about 
something in high level. And as I recall, these discussions can't cover 
everything at that moment because they thought we'd better post a 
preliminary patches to further discuss something since this is really a 
complicated case. So afterwards I sent out two RFC revisions to help all 
guys finalize a good solution. And I can confirm current policy is 
always same from the first RFC, but we didn't see any opposite advice 
until now.

>
> 2. The only discussion I *did* find has *you yourself* saying that the
> per-device setting should override the global setting, not once, but
> twice; and nobody contradicting you.
>
> Maybe there is somewhere else a discussion somewhere where this was
> changed; but I've already spent half an hour this morning looking at
> where you said it was (v2 design discussion), and found the opposite --
> just as I remembered.  I'm not going to look anymore.
>
> You have now caused me to waste an awful lot of time on this series that
> could profitably have been used elsewhere.

Sorry to this but I just think we already have 2 RFC revisions and 4 
revisions without RFC, and some patches are already Acked, we really 
should overturn this policy right now?

>
> [1]
> marc.info/?i=<AADFC41AFE54684AB9EE6CBC0274A5D126147864@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
>
> [2] marc.info/?i=<20150519110041.GB21998@zion.uk.xensource.com>
>
> [3] marc.info/?i=<555C1B5C.7070401@intel.com>
>
>
>>> I was involved in the design discussion, and from the very beginning I
>>> probably saw your plan but misunderstood it.  I wouldn't be surprised if
>>> some others didn't quite understand what they were agreeing to.
>>
>> Again, I didn't walk into v2 design. So here I don't want to bring any
>> confusion to you just with my reply.
>
> This is your feature, so it is your responsibility to understand and
> explain why you are doing what you are doing, if only to say "Jan wanted

Maybe you remember I just posted v1 but looks that was not a better 
design to show this implementation according to some feedback, so Kevin 
issued v2 revision and had a wider discussion with you guys. Since then 
I just follow this version. So I mean I don't further hold these things 
in high level since I just think both policy is fine to me because IMO, 
these two approaches are optional.

> X to happen because of Y [see $ref]."
>

So this is why I said you'd better ask this to Kevin or Jan since I 
can't decide what's next at this point.

Thanks
Tiejun