On 1/6/20 11:55 AM, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote: > On 24.12.2019 12:15, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 12/24/19 10:08 AM, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 24.12.2019 10:01, George Dunlap wrote: >>>> On 12/23/19 2:04 PM, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote: >>>> >>>> Why? >>>> >>> >>> This was a request from Jan. >> >> Yes, I saw the Requested-by. It still needs an explanation. >> > > This is what Jan said in V2: > > "All of this is not EPT-specific. Before adding more infrastructure to > cover for this (here: another function parameter), how about moving > these parts into vendor-independent code?" > > If there is a need for further explanation maybe Jan can help here.
Well "EPT-specific" and "vendor-independent" are enough to indicate the reason for the motion, but the title doesn't say either of those two things, and so the reader is left to guess. A title / message like this would have been fine: --- x86/mm: Pull non-EPT-specific altp2m handling code into vendor-independent code No functional changes. --- Or since that's a bit long, maybe: --- x86/mm: Pull vendor-independent altp2m code out of p2m-ept.c ...and into p2m.c. No functional changes. --- -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
