From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/17] Stop/start cpus before/after devices
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 09:26:31 -0500
Message-ID: <4A117017.400@us.ibm.com>
References: <1242574999-20887-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <1242574999-20887-6-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <4A104287.6080000@redhat.com> <20090518135843.GB3168@amt.cnet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@gmail.com>,
	Yaniv Kamay <yaniv@redhat.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:33590 "EHLO
	e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751961AbZERO06 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 18 May 2009 10:26:58 -0400
Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227])
	by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n4IEKjNp010740
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 18 May 2009 08:20:45 -0600
Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170])
	by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n4IEQs37257856
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 18 May 2009 08:26:55 -0600
Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n4IEQr9R010038
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 18 May 2009 08:26:53 -0600
In-Reply-To: <20090518135843.GB3168@amt.cnet>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 07:59:51PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>     
>>> From: Yaniv Kamay <yaniv@qumranet.com>
>>>
>>> Stop cpus before devices when stopping the VM, start cpus after devices
>>> when starting VM.  Otherwise a vcpu could access a stopped device.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> IIRC we decided this was unnecessary since everything is under  
>> qemu_mutex.  However we might want to be on the safe side here and be  
>> similar to master.
>>     
>
> Yes, it is not necessary. Since upstream is already on the safe side
> (and the plan is to merge with it), IMO better leave this patch out.
>   

Maybe it ought to be reverted from master then?

-- 
Regards,

Anthony Liguori