[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160421160841.GD25335@potion>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 18:08:41 +0200
From: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To: Greg Kurz <gkurz@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, james.hogan@...tec.com,
mingo@...hat.com, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qemu-ppc@...gnu.org,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: remove buggy vcpu id check on vcpu creation
2016-04-21 17:49+0200, Greg Kurz:
> So we're good ?
I support the change, just had a nit about API design for v2.
> Whose tree can carry these patches ?
(PowerPC is the only immediately affected arch, so I'd it there.)
What do you think is best? My experience in this regard is pretty low.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists