[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5762559A.1090604@de.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:30:34 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
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 06/16/2016 12:00 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> 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?
With the 2 fixes that Conny requested, yes.
With that fixed up,
Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists