From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: KVM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:36:39 +0100
Message-ID: <15d06a81-28bf-7fd9-ce4b-d3d07383e8b4@users.sourceforge.net>
References: <a2fb541a-7a7d-1f78-b587-1191b9832088@users.sourceforge.net>
 <5e40aa05-ccdf-0995-e1c4-a331d1da998a@redhat.com>
 <a1a42521-ca5c-8bff-0121-d4b63fd570f3@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1485224105.31460.1.camel@petrovitsch.priv.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
To: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1485224105.31460.1.camel@petrovitsch.priv.at>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

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

I suggested additional changes which can get an usual mixture of agreements
and rejections.


> and others should do the work to get it accepted?

Not directly. - I imagine that there are further collaboration possibilities,
aren't there?

Which benchmarks (and test metrics) would you trust for the desired software evolution?

Regards,
Markus