On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:14:26PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > We want a full solution and this kind of patching makes the patches > difficuilt to review because later patches revert earlier ones.
I know you rather want to see KVM development stalled for more months than to get a partial solution now that already covers KVM and GRU with the same API that XPMEM will also use later. It's very unfair on your side to pretend to stall other people development if what you need has stronger requirements and can't be merged immediately. This is especially true given it was publically stated that XPMEM never passed all regression tests anyway, so you can't possibly be in such an hurry like we are, we can't progress without this. Infact we can but it would be an huge effort and it would run _slower_ and it would all need to be deleted once mmu notifiers are in. Note that the only patch that you can avoid with your approach is mm_lock-rwsem, given that's software developed and not human developed I don't see a big deal of wasted effort. The main difference is the ordering. Most of the code is orthogonal so there's not much to revert. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel