From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/1] Introduce VCPUOP_reset_vcpu_info
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 13:54:56 +0200
Message-ID: <87mwbg4ir3.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
References: <1407330502-18768-1-git-send-email-vkuznets@redhat.com>
	<53E253470200007800029C1D@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<53E253470200007800029C1D@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<87a97h64oy.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
	<53E269350200007800029D5A@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<53E269350200007800029D5A@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<87r40s4jdv.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
	<53E383B2020000780002A1E5@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <vkuznets@redhat.com>) id 1XFMHi-0007ao-Gf
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 11:55:06 +0000
In-Reply-To: <53E383B2020000780002A1E5@mail.emea.novell.com> (Jan Beulich's
	message of "Thu, 07 Aug 2014 12:48:34 +0100")
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> writes:

>>>> On 07.08.14 at 13:41, <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>> "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 06.08.14 at 17:03, <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> In xen their vcpu_info will point to dummy_vcpu_info (that's what we
>>>> have there before VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info I guess).
>>>
>>> Right, but such a vCPU can't be brought up. Did you verify that
>>> this holds with your additions?
>> 
>> That's fine as new kernel will call VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info on
>> bootup. 
>
> But my question was targeting the hypervisor side, i.e. I was
> asking that you get away from your "works fine in my limited use
> case" way of thinking, and rather check that you don't subtly
> break anything else.

Thanks, that's fine, that's what the RFC is about. I'll definitely try
looking deeper and I'll be grateful for some examples of what can
actually go wrong.

-- 
  Vitaly