On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 06:35:08PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > 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?). Yes and I dropped the patch from there, just did not push yet. > Presumably it is now also in the rr > tree? > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
