On Saturday, January 04, 2014 09:35:58 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 03/01/2014 23:46, Rafael J. Wysocki ha scritto: > > Well, fixing the KVM bug is surely welcome. > > > > That said, adding checks to ensure that your assumptions are valid is rarely > > wrong, especially if they are done once per kernel boot. And the kernel only > > should panic if it cannot continue to run, which isn't the case here. > > I agree, but I suspect even your check is already late. Well, it's just a sanity check and it makes the problem go away for the reporter. > Your patch is welcome but perhaps it should have a WARN_ON too. It has been pulled in already, so the WARN_ON() can only be added via a separate patch now. Would you like to prepare that patch? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
