From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:58:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly Message-Id: <4B49CEE7.4050507@redhat.com> List-Id: References: <1262915889-11526-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1262915889-11526-8-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1FB2DDB0-F72E-437C-BEC5-8E1AEE5FBCC7@suse.de> <465359C6-52BD-4227-BEAC-639CDC239964@suse.de> <4B49C959.8040900@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Alexander Graf Cc: Hollis Blanchard , KVM General , kvm-ppc , Benjamin Herrenschmidt On 01/10/2010 02:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> What's the conclusion here? Do we need a respin or is this good enough? >> > From my point of view this is good. Hollis and I were just both agreeing that it would be nice to move BookE to a similar concept. That really isn't in the scope of this series though. > Thanks. All applied. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:58:15 +0200 Message-ID: <4B49CEE7.4050507@redhat.com> References: <1262915889-11526-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1262915889-11526-8-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1FB2DDB0-F72E-437C-BEC5-8E1AEE5FBCC7@suse.de> <465359C6-52BD-4227-BEAC-639CDC239964@suse.de> <4B49C959.8040900@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Hollis Blanchard , KVM General , kvm-ppc , Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:7394 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752042Ab0AJM6t (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:58:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/10/2010 02:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> What's the conclusion here? Do we need a respin or is this good enough? >> > From my point of view this is good. Hollis and I were just both agreeing that it would be nice to move BookE to a similar concept. That really isn't in the scope of this series though. > Thanks. All applied. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function