From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750783AbdAXCha (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 21:37:30 -0500 Received: from esgaroth.petrovitsch.at ([78.47.184.11]:1121 "EHLO esgaroth.tuxoid.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750720AbdAXCh2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 21:37:28 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 1305 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 21:37:27 EST Message-ID: <1485224105.31460.1.camel@petrovitsch.priv.at> Subject: Re: KVM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations From: Bernd Petrovitsch To: SF Markus Elfring , Paolo Bonzini , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: Radim =?UTF-8?Q?Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99?= , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 03:15:05 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <5e40aa05-ccdf-0995-e1c4-a331d1da998a@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.4 (3.22.4-2.fc25) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC--Metrics: esgaroth.tuxoid.at 1102; Body=6 Fuz1=6 Fuz2=6 X-Spam-Report: * 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 10:48 +0100, 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. Which is not explained here. > Would others like to help in approaches for checking corresponding > run time changes a bit more? You propose the patch and others should do the work to get it accepted? Kind regards, Bernd -- Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at LUGA : http://www.luga.at