From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751277AbdAWOGo (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:06:44 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58992 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751206AbdAWOGl (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:06:41 -0500 Subject: Re: KVM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations To: SF Markus Elfring , kvm@vger.kernel.org References: <5e40aa05-ccdf-0995-e1c4-a331d1da998a@redhat.com> Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <0fe83268-e233-557b-78b2-d34ff00a6ab3@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:06:33 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:06:37 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 23/01/2017 10:48, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> The others are useless churn or they make the result uselessly different >> from the rest of KVM code. > > I got an other view about potential benefits around the suggested movements > for error code settings. I'll consider them when your emails stop looking like the output a Markov chain. Paolo > Would others like to help in approaches for checking corresponding run time changes > a bit more?