On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:47:06PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:29:00PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote: > > In any case, while I obviously agree that it's your prerogative not to merge > > code that you consider ugly, I still don't see any particular problem to start > > with the current, working, code, and fix it later. It's not like we can never > > change this code after it's in - it's clearly marked with if(nested) and > > doesn't effect anything in the non-nested path. > > > After code it merged there is much less incentive to change things > drastically. I think nested svm is a good counter example to that. It has drastically improved since it was merged. Ok, it hasn't _changed_ drastically, but what drastic changes do we expect to become necessary in the nested-vmx code? Joerg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
