> On Jan 5, 2021, at 11:45 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 07:05:22PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: >>> On Jan 5, 2021, at 10:45 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I just don't like to slow down a feature required in the future for >>> implementing postcopy live snapshotting or other snapshots to userland >>> processes (for the non-KVM case, also unprivileged by default if using >>> bounce buffers to feed the syscalls) that can be used by open source >>> hypervisors to beat proprietary hypervisors like vmware. >> >> Ouch, that’s uncalled for. I am sure that you understand that I have no >> hidden agenda and we all have the same goal. > > Ehm I never said you had an hidden agenda, so I'm not exactly why > you're accusing me of something I never said. > > I merely pointed out one relevant justification for increasing kernel > complexity here by not slowing down clear_refs longstanding O(N) > clear_refs/softdirty feature and the recent uffd-wp O(1) feature, is > to be more competitive with proprietary software solutions, since > at least for uffd-wp, postcopy live snapshotting that the #1 use > case. > > I never questioned your contribution or your preference, to be even > more explicit, it never crossed my mind that you have an hidden > agenda. > > However since everyone already acked your patches and I'm not ok with > your patches because they will give a hit to KVM postcopy live > snapshotting and other container clear_refs users, I have to justify > why I NAK your patches and remaining competitive with proprietary > hypervisors is one of them, so I don't see what is wrong to state a > tangible end goal here. I fully understand your objection to my patches and it is a valid objection, which I will address. I just thought that there might be some insinuation, as you mentioned VMware by name. My response was half-jokingly and should have had a smiley to prevent you from wasting your time on the explanation.
