linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: do not use kvm->online_vcpus to check "has one VCPU been created?"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:44 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Christian Borntraeger <christian.borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: do not use kvm->online_vcpus to check "has one
 VCPU been created?"



On 13/06/2016 16:44, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> >  arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 10 +++++-----
>> >  arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig     |  1 -
>> >  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c       | 11 +++--------
>> >  include/linux/kvm_host.h | 14 ++++++++------
>> >  virt/kvm/Kconfig         |  3 ---
>> >  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c      | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
>> >  6 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>> > 
> Looks like a sane approach, only two inversions in the s390 patch :)

So it's okay to push patch 3 to kvm/next?

Thanks,

Paolo