Hi all, On Wed, 30 May 2012 19:41:47 +0930 Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 28 May 2012 15:53:25 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:19:54PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > disable_cb is just an optimization: it > > > can not guarantee that there are no callbacks. > > > > > > I didn't yet figure out whether a callback > > > in freeze will trigger a bug, but disable_cb > > > won't address it in any case. So let's remove > > > the useless calls as a first step. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Looks like this isn't in the 3.5 pull request - > > just lost in the shuffle? > > disable_cb is advisory so can't be relied upon. > > I always (try to?) reply as I accept patches. > > This one did slip by, but it's harmless so no need to push AFAICT. > > Applied. This patch exists in two trees in linux-next already ... Davem's net tree (so presumably he will send it to Linus shortly) and Michael's vhost tree (is that tree needed any more?). Presumably it is now also in the rr tree? -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgphPphrK04m_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
