Re: [PATCH v6] kvm: make vcpu life cycle separated from kvm instance

[Takuya Yoshikawa]

(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<pingfank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > 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<pingfank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/