From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: Memory usage with qemu-kvm-0.12.1.1 Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:12:02 +0200 Message-ID: <4B379562.8060007@redhat.com> References: <20091227155107.GK7104@defiant.freesoftware> <4B378546.6070104@redhat.com> <4B378C25.4070206@redhat.com> <4B378D6D.40505@redhat.com> <4B378F32.1050307@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dbareiro@gmx.net, KVM General , "hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk" To: Rik van Riel Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52069 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751380AbZL0RMK (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:12:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B378F32.1050307@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/27/2009 06:45 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > >> If so, it doesn't copy stable@kernel.org. Is it queued for -stable? > > I do not believe that it is queued for -stable. > > Do performance fixes fit with -stable policy? > If it is a serious regression, I believe it fits. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function