From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] apic: eoi optimization support Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 14:47:55 +0300 Message-ID: <4FA7B66B.5090105@redhat.com> References: <20120507103512.GG23002@gmail.com> <20120507105910.GA18943@redhat.com> <20120507114001.GA15186@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Marcelo Tosatti , gleb@redhat.com, Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120507114001.GA15186@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 05/07/2012 02:40 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > No objections from the x86 side. > > > > Is kvm.git a good tree to merge this through? > > Fine to me, but I haven't checked how widely it conflicts with > existing bits: by the looks of it most of the linecount is on > the core x86 side, while the kvm change is well concentrated. I don't see a problem with merging though tip.git - we're close to the next merge window, and the guest side rarely causes conflicts. But please don't apply the last patch yet, I want to review it more closely (esp. with the host side). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function