From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD3CC38A24 for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 17:27:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F59820A8B for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 17:27:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="VAMNH38w" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5F59820A8B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jWkIS-0007bx-Qj; Thu, 07 May 2020 17:26:56 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jWkIR-0007bs-7a for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 17:26:55 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: f190c9a0-9087-11ea-b9cf-bc764e2007e4 Received: from esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.145.155]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id f190c9a0-9087-11ea-b9cf-bc764e2007e4; Thu, 07 May 2020 17:26:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1588872415; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LR34SWfeleLjzXZQ9LoxWEPpFUaT9bSTuTKCJAVw5K4=; b=VAMNH38wr5MsyyNgwlAqBCDPj12aPQH8nwP7ejahgBvZr+vhLtDWwCCN HQm7247Udsf6ByLwPmqdiZklxh5D6Eto5G9hJjHxuKhU8cJzAoumPukwf SF3neczHtBKz9oD0l0kjUPXKA9lFsdTNgUaNDFfkTL3dewr7w3rH35rkM U=; Authentication-Results: esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail.citrix.com Received-SPF: None (esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of andrew.cooper3@citrix.com) identity=pra; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-sender="andrew.cooper3@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-sender="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133 ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4 ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88 ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83 ip4:168.245.78.127 ~all" Received-SPF: None (esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible IronPort-SDR: eS/OeqLO/8MeKOgG/u67CxxTmP7DRjAKrh1xQb6ZUXI8aaDnEeEFanrlowPWLCEZA42aQT+BXZ 8B1shmrGbf96Q7zunQPnGObyN/6ftTwoNZ7kuMBa8LVGqBxkJvxapSJHcz5B57fPjWTZK9jr/5 YU7FWFAvgNfwKChzBqLefOx80WBPhYLqaluU7NO2/aJNO/aN2WpS3xfh9yom9LDVxwewRhdB6k k9WCwOR9WgSCUUs0XVWpLMdkPOZ/g5v7FFuZWzS4Uv9HckPRQEo9s13LTSG/KJegpUn+U1hH0S 0uo= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 16990167 X-Ironport-Server: esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,364,1583211600"; d="scan'208";a="16990167" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] x86/mm: no-one passes a NULL domain to init_xen_l4_slots() To: Jan Beulich References: <9d4b738a-4487-6bfc-3076-597d074c7b47@suse.com> <8787b72e-c71e-b75d-2ca0-0c6fe7c8259f@suse.com> <20200421164055.GW28601@Air-de-Roger> <4779dde6-6582-1776-ea9b-a2cd46ac3bc3@suse.com> From: Andrew Cooper Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 18:26:48 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4779dde6-6582-1776-ea9b-a2cd46ac3bc3@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS02.citrite.net (10.69.22.113) To AMSPEX02CL02.citrite.net (10.69.22.126) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Tim Deegan , George Dunlap , Wei Liu , =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On 05/05/2020 07:31, Jan Beulich wrote: > [CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT reply, click links, or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. > > Andrew, > > On 21.04.2020 18:40, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:11:03AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Drop the NULL checks - they've been introduced by commit 8d7b633ada >>> ("x86/mm: Consolidate all Xen L4 slot writing into >>> init_xen_l4_slots()") for no apparent reason. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich >> Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné > you weren't entirely happy with the change because of the > possible (or, as you state, necessary) need to undo this. I > still think in the current shape the NULL checks are > pointless and hence would better go away. Re-introducing them > (adjusted to whatever shape the function may be in by that > time) is not that big of a problem. May I ask that you > explicitly clarify whether you actively NAK the patch, accept > it going in with Roger's R-b, or would be willing to ack it? I'm not going to nack it, because that would be petty, but I still don't think it is a useful use of your time to be making more work for someone in the future to revert. However, if you wish to take the patch with Roger's R-b, then please fix the stale commit message, seeing as this is v2 and I explained exactly why it was done like that. ~Andrew