From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [v1][PATCH 1/1] KVM: PPC: disable preemption when using
 hard_irq_disable()
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:28:04 +1000
Message-ID: <1373545684.19894.80.camel@pasglop>
References: <1373436139-27998-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
	 <62E2724C-EC17-4E36-AC9E-C9FFEDF5C5B7@suse.de>
	 <51DE1CE9.7060406@windriver.com>
	 <FDF2269A-AB8F-4568-A584-1EE4A957E266@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "tiejun.chen" <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>,
	"<kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>" <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"<kvm@vger.kernel.org> list" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Return-path: <kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <FDF2269A-AB8F-4568-A584-1EE4A957E266@suse.de>
Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 11:49 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Ben, is soft_enabled == 0; hard_enabled == 1 a valid combination that
> may ever occur?

Yes of course, that's what we call "soft disabled" :-) It's even the
whole point of doing lazy disable...

Ben.