Re: Ping: [PATCH v5 0/6] evtchn: (not so) recent XSAs follow-on

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 21.04.2021 17:56, Julien Grall wrote:
> 
> 
> On 21/04/2021 16:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 27.01.2021 09:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> These are grouped into a series largely because of their origin,
>>> not so much because there are (heavy) dependencies among them.
>>> The main change from v4 is the dropping of the two patches trying
>>> to do away with the double event lock acquires in interdomain
>>> channel handling. See also the individual patches.
>>>
>>> 1: use per-channel lock where possible
>>> 2: convert domain event lock to an r/w one
>>> 3: slightly defer lock acquire where possible
>>> 4: add helper for port_is_valid() + evtchn_from_port()
>>> 5: type adjustments
>>> 6: drop acquiring of per-channel lock from send_guest_{global,vcpu}_virq()
>>
>> Only patch 4 here has got an ack so far - may I ask for clear feedback
>> as to at least some of these being acceptable (I can see the last one
>> being controversial, and if this was the only one left I probably
>> wouldn't even ping, despite thinking that it helps reduce unecessary
>> overhead).
> 
> I left feedback for the series one the previous version (see [1]). It 
> would have been nice is if it was mentionned somewhere as this is still 
> unresolved.

I will admit I forgot about the controversy on patch 1. I did, however,
reply to your concerns. What didn't happen is the feedback from others
that you did ask for.

And of course there are 4 more patches here (one of them having an ack,
yes) which could do with feedback. I'm certainly willing, where possible,
to further re-order the series such that controversial changes are at its
end.

Jan