From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: KVM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:06:33 +0100
Message-ID: <0fe83268-e233-557b-78b2-d34ff00a6ab3@redhat.com>
References: <a2fb541a-7a7d-1f78-b587-1191b9832088@users.sourceforge.net>
 <5e40aa05-ccdf-0995-e1c4-a331d1da998a@redhat.com>
 <a1a42521-ca5c-8bff-0121-d4b63fd570f3@users.sourceforge.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <a1a42521-ca5c-8bff-0121-d4b63fd570f3@users.sourceforge.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org



On 23/01/2017 10:48, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> The others are useless churn or they make the result uselessly different
>> from the rest of KVM code.
>
> I got an other view about potential benefits around the suggested movements
> for error code settings.

I'll consider them when your emails stop looking like the output a
Markov chain.

Paolo

> Would others like to help in approaches for checking corresponding run time changes
> a bit more?