Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 00/18] VM forking

From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@tklengyel.com>
Cc: "Petre Pircalabu" <ppircalabu@bitdefender.com>,
	"Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	"Tamas K Lengyel" <tamas.lengyel@intel.com>,
	"Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>,
	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	"George Dunlap" <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
	"Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	"Ian Jackson" <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
	"Anthony PERARD" <anthony.perard@citrix.com>,
	"Julien Grall" <julien@xen.org>,
	"Alexandru Isaila" <aisaila@bitdefender.com>,
	Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 00/18] VM forking
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:12:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fec3f76c-c85e-1bd6-2049-c0b6031005fe@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABfawh=pBDQTxeJ-XHbi61nQNukGzGsD-iEtSWeNXnrS-H7b1Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 16.01.2020 17:24, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 8:47 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 08.01.2020 18:13, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>> Tamas K Lengyel (18):
>>>   x86/hvm: introduce hvm_copy_context_and_params
>>>   xen/x86: Make hap_get_allocation accessible
>>>   x86/mem_sharing: make get_two_gfns take locks conditionally
>>>   x86/mem_sharing: drop flags from mem_sharing_unshare_page
>>>   x86/mem_sharing: don't try to unshare twice during page fault
>>>   x86/mem_sharing: define mem_sharing_domain to hold some scattered
>>>     variables
>>>   x86/mem_sharing: Use INVALID_MFN and p2m_is_shared in
>>>     relinquish_shared_pages
>>>   x86/mem_sharing: Make add_to_physmap static and shorten name
>>>   x86/mem_sharing: Convert MEM_SHARING_DESTROY_GFN to a bool
>>
>> I've looked at these patches, and I think 2-4 and 7-9 could go
>> in right away (6 has a small question pending, but may otherwise
>> also be ready), if you were to give (or delegate) your ack that
>> they would need afaict. Thoughts?
>>
> 
> Not sure I understand your question. My understanding is that since
> I'm the maintainer of the code being changed by these patches I just
> need a "reviewed-by" from someone in the community and no outstanding
> issue on them.

Please note that my previous mail was _to_ George, with you only
_cc_-ed. Hence the question was to George, not you. (It is a
common issue which I keep mentioning on meetings that the
distinction of To and Cc is often not being honored, albeit
typically more by senders than recipients.)

> Provided this is v4 now of the series and no issues
> were raised so far for these particular patches they can be merged
> with your Reviewed-by.

I don't think so, under the current (sufficiently) common
understanding of the rules. See George's proposal to change to a
model like what you imply:
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-01/msg00885.html

Jan

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