[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160616095946.35cc57e8.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:59:46 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
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 Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:30:34 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:
> 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.
I had been waiting for a v2 ;)
>
> With that fixed up,
> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
>
In that case, you can also add my
Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
to the s390 patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists