[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c351bf0c-0139-81e1-e053-c07cb76f1421@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:07:58 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.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 16/06/2016 09:30, Christian Borntraeger 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.
>
> With that fixed up,
> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Yes, of course. Pushed, thanks!
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists