From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Borntraeger Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: do not use kvm->online_vcpus to check "has one VCPU been created?" Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:30:34 +0200 Message-ID: <5762559A.1090604@de.ibm.com> References: <1465824332-10628-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20160613164421.77b70bee.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> <26948b73-1233-8515-24ac-7557837230b2@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Christian Borntraeger To: Paolo Bonzini , Cornelia Huck Return-path: In-Reply-To: <26948b73-1233-8515-24ac-7557837230b2@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 06/16/2016 12:00 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 13/06/2016 16:44, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 10 +++++----- >>>> arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig | 1 - >>>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 11 +++-------- >>>> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 14 ++++++++------ >>>> virt/kvm/Kconfig | 3 --- >>>> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++---------- >>>> 6 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) >>>> >> Looks like a sane approach, only two inversions in the s390 patch :) > > So it's okay to push patch 3 to kvm/next? With the 2 fixes that Conny requested, yes. With that fixed up, Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger