From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753459Ab1L1KSJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Dec 2011 05:18:09 -0500 Received: from serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp ([222.151.198.100]:57708 "EHLO serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753158Ab1L1KSI (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Dec 2011 05:18:08 -0500 Message-ID: <4EFAED2E.6090403@oss.ntt.co.jp> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:19:26 +0900 From: Takuya Yoshikawa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja; rv:1.9.2.25) Gecko/20111213 Thunderbird/3.1.17 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avi Kivity CC: Liu Ping Fan , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aliguori@us.ibm.com, gleb@redhat.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com, jan.kiszka@web.de, Takuya Yoshikawa Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] kvm: make vcpu life cycle separated from kvm instance References: <1324091975-20930-1-git-send-email-kernelfans@gmail.com> <1324975139-8836-1-git-send-email-kernelfans@gmail.com> <4EFAE72D.3080609@redhat.com> <4EFAE74F.7000200@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4EFAE74F.7000200@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (2011/12/28 18:54), Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/28/2011 11:53 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 12/27/2011 10:38 AM, Liu Ping Fan wrote: >>> From: Liu Ping Fan >>> >>> Currently, vcpu can be destructed only when kvm instance destroyed. >>> Change this to vcpu's destruction before kvm instance, so vcpu MUST >>> and CAN be destroyed before kvm's destroy. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Liu Ping Fan >>> --- >>> arch/x86/kvm/i8254.c | 10 +++-- >>> arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c | 17 +++++-- >>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 53 +++++++++++----------- >>> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 20 +++----- >>> virt/kvm/irq_comm.c | 6 ++- >>> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- >>> >> >> Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt >> > > Oops, that's only needed when the unplug API is introduced. > I think it is OK to to add such an API later on, but I really want the author to write the plan in the changelog. Otherwise people not belonging to Red Hat or IBM cannot know what this commit is aiming at. I am not objecting to this patch itself, but the way this kind of change is being introduced seems not be in a good manner. Takuya