On 26.06.2012, at 17:57, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:36:19 +0200 > Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > >> >> On 26.06.2012, at 17:33, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:52:56 +0200 >>> Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 26.06.2012, at 16:06, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>> >>>>> From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com> >>>>> >>>>> Only if the sensed cpu is not running a status is stored, which >>>>> is reflected by condition code 1. If the cpu is running, condition >>>>> code 0 should be returned. >>>>> Just the opposite of what the code is doing. >>>>> >>>>> Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com> >>>> >>>> Yikes. Is this a stable candidate? >>> >>> This code will only hit when running on a host running virtualized >>> itself (where sigp sense running will cause an intercept), so I doubt >>> many people will see the effects. >> >> You mean this will hit when running kvm inside of a z/VM VM? That's a pretty >> valid use case. > > I'd have thought it was a very uncommon one. But I certainly don't > object against putting the fix into stable.
It's not exactly useful for productive things, but just for prototyping KVM, people tend to not have spare LPARs lying around :) So yes, this should go into stable. Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
