On 02/07/2014 11:04 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 02/07/2014 04:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 06.02.2014, at 17:36, Greg Kurz <gkurz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> As discussed in this thread: >>> >>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/309166/ >>> >>> We need some consistency in the way we check whether the guest >>> should resume or not because: >>> - new RESUME_GUEST_XXX values may show up >>> - more locations in KVM may need to perform a similar check >>> >>> This serie introduces a helper and patches the locations where it >>> should be called. There is yet another location in __kvmppc_vcpu_run, >>> but it is assembly and cannot call a C inlined function. >> >> Thanks, applied all to kvm-ppc-queue. I think the splitting on this one is quite excessive - a single patch would've done :). > > Why did it get applied immediately? #3 or #4 (I do not remember for sure) > break HV KVM, this is why I do not repost it and keep trying Paul to reply > to the initial thread. Ah. No, false alarm, sorry. I think "while(!(r & RESUME_FLAG_HOST));" failed but this is different. -- Alexey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
