From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: CPU hotplug add seems broken Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:06:24 +0200 Message-ID: <4B4B0630.8010509@redhat.com> References: <5e93dcec1001100033tdb930eqcaf48a36ee36b335@mail.gmail.com> <20100110084353.GI4905@redhat.com> <5e93dcec1001110124l38d35ef7y4e92aa8b74aa810a@mail.gmail.com> <4B4AFC09.3090909@redhat.com> <20100111102434.GG7549@redhat.com> <4B4AFCB0.1080706@redhat.com> <20100111104213.GH7549@redhat.com> <4B4B025D.1020309@redhat.com> <20100111105331.GI7549@redhat.com> <4B4B0450.9010904@redhat.com> <20100111110328.GJ7549@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ryota Ozaki , dbareiro@gmx.net, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3465 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751221Ab0AKLG2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:06:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100111110328.GJ7549@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/11/2010 01:03 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> No, but I'm not really worried about that. >> >> > So you want to introduce something that we know upset Windows without > looking into alternatives. I don't want to drop support for existing guests unless I have to. > And as far as I remember upstream position > on the UNISYS way was negative, did this change? > I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the unisys implementation. True, it's not written to any spec, but neither is anything we can come up with (unless we find a spec for cpu hotplug). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function