Re: [PATCH v3 05/13] x86/altp2m: basic data structures and support routines.

[Ed White <edmund.h.white@intel.com>]

On 07/06/2015 02:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 03.07.15 at 18:22, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> 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 <edmund.h.white@intel.com>
>>
>> Only some style issues.  Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper
>> <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> 
> 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