[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6584b4d5-b7a1-2dbb-1a27-10f9c7949be9@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 13:56:12 -0700
From: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Deep Shah <sdeep@...are.com>,
VMware Inc <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Peter H Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/11] Add TDX Guest Support (Initial support)
On 10/9/21 12:38 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 10:37:36PM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>> Hi All,
>
> Now let's see: you sent this particular patchset on Monday, 4th. The
> usual process is that you wait at least a week for review comments,
> incorporate them into your next revision and then you send it. We were
> still reviewing v8...
Sorry for the quick re-submissions. But the main reason for sending v9
within a week is,
1. Following compilation error found in v8.
This fails to build:
arch/x86/kernel/tdx.c: In function ‘tdx_write_msr_safe’:
arch/x86/kernel/tdx.c:135:22: error: implicit declaration of function ‘tdx_is_context_switched_msr’
[-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
135 | WARN_ON_ONCE(tdx_is_context_switched_msr(msr));
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./include/asm-generic/bug.h:104:32: note: in definition of macro ‘WARN_ON_ONCE’
104 | int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition);
2. I had to rebase my patches on your tip tree again to adapt to the latest
version of CC patches.
3. Also to address your comment about using is_tdx_guest() in
cc_platform_has()
I thought the above issues warranted a re-submission. I know that it is a mistake
from my end. But I did not want you to review code changes that might go away
due to rebase.
>
> But I see already a v9 in my mbox from yesterday and *also* a v10. v9
> you probably didn't build-test enough so you had to hastily do a v10. 4
> days later!
I have sent v10 within few hours of v9 submission to fix a static inline issue.
I did not catch it my compilation test because, it happens only with a
TDX disabled config.
Sorry for the trouble again. Please ignore the v9 version. I will try not to repeat
this in future.
>
> And because that's not enough, there are a bunch of other TDX patchsets
> from you flying in constantly.
>
> Now, please explain to me how you imagine this whole review thing is
> supposed to work?
>
> You hammer people with patchsets until they go in? Forget proper review?
>
> Or people should drop the other things they have to do for their jobs
> and deal only with your patchsets?
>
> How about we trade places: you review and try to get sh*t to work and I
> hammer you with patchsets every 3-4 days?
>
> For chrissakes, please calm down with that constant hammering and try to
> put yourself in the maintainer's shoes for once. Also, try to realize
> that hammering people with patchsets will get you the *opposite* of what
> you're trying to achieve - you will get ignored.
>
> Geez.
>
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists