Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V8 1/1] Guest stop notificationorry for rduplicate mail ndreas

[Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 04/07/2012 02:39 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 06.04.2012 15:01, schrieb Raghavendra K T:
>> On 04/06/2012 03:19 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2012 02:29 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>> Am 06.04.2012 09:21, schrieb Raghavendra K T:
>>>>> From: Eric B Munson<emunson@mgebm.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> Often when a guest is stopped from the qemu console, it will report
>>>>> spurious
>>>>> soft lockup warnings on resume. There are kernel patches being
>>>>> discussed that
>>>>> will give the host the ability to tell the guest that it is being
>>>>> stopped and
>>>>> should ignore the soft lockup warning that generates. This patch uses
>>>>> the qemu
>>>>> Notifier system to tell the guest it is about to be stopped.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric B Munson<emunson@mgebm.net>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T<raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Eric B Munson<emunson@mgebm.net>
>>>>> Cc: Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com>
>>>>> Cc: Marcelo Tosatti<mtosatti@redhat.com>
>>>>> Cc: Anthony Liguori<aliguori@us.ibm.com>
>>>>> Cc: Jan Kiszka<jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>>>>> Cc: "Andreas FÀrber"<afaerber@suse.de>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Changes from V7:
>>>>> capabilty changed to KVM_CAP_KVMCLOCK_CTRL
>>>>> KVM_GUEST_PAUSED is pervcpu again
>>>>> CPUState renamed to CPUArchState
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, change looks right to me.
>>
>> I think I should have added Acked-by and resent full patch. So here is
>> it. sorry for duplicate mail.
>
> No, it was not intended as such since I can't ack the ioctl. Resends are
> best done with git-send-email, i.e. a v9 with change log (whether as
> reply or not, opinions are divided) to make sure the right version gets
> applied in the end.

Ok. Thanks Andreas. sending V9 shortly

>
[...]
>> +            if (ret) {
>> +                if (ret != -EINVAL) {
>> +                    fprintf(stderr,
>> +                            " %s: %s\n", __FUNCTION__,
>
> Is the whitespace before %s intentional? Wasn't there in v8.
>
> The GCC manual recommends __func__, like I suggested, saying it's C99.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.0/gcc/Function-Names.html#Function-Names
> __FUNCTION__ usage is currently 432 vs. __func__ 579, so not wrong.
>

will correct them.

> If you want to leave it that way you can add my
>
> Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber<afaerber@suse.de>
>
> Andreas
>
>> +                            strerror(-ret));
>> +                }
>> +                return;
>> +            }
>> +        }
>>       }
>>   }
>>
>