On Wed, Sep 22, 2010, Gleb Natapov wrote about "Re: KVM call minutes for Sept 21": > are reworked even if maintained. Nadav said that he doesn't even know > how this part of code is working. This is worrying. Hi, I just wanted to clarify that reason I don't know exactly how this specific part of the code works, is because I didn't write it. It doesn't mean that I think it is so complex that nobody can ever understand it, or that there is a cause for worry. The people who wrote this code were convinced (see thread from October 2009, starting with http://www.mail-archive.com/kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg23898.html) that their approach was the right thing to do for the IDT_VECTORING_INFO. Between them being convinced that this is the right way, and you being convinced that it is the wrong way, I am not (yet) convinced about either direction. Before I'm quick to simply get rid of this (working) code and replace it with something else, I need to understand all the little details involved, and to try to rewrite the code to be more nested-SVM-like and still work, and to understand how I might test whether it actually works (and it isn't simply that my workload misses this case altogether). I'll do this. Nadav. -- Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Sep 23 2010, 15 Tishri 5771 nyh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |----------------------------------------- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |I'm a peripheral visionary: I see into http://nadav.harel.org.il |the future, but mostly off to the sides. -- 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
