On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 13:17:14 -0200 Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:47:31PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > do not assume that all lapics in range 0..apic_id_limit > > are valid and do not create Processor and Notify objects > > for not possible lapics. > > > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> > > Any specific reason you split the Processor/Notify changes and > the MADT/lapic entries into patches 5 and 6? Won't guests be > confused if the Processor entries are missing but the lapic > entries are still there? Guest shouldn't be confused as MADT is used during while Processor during hotplug. > > I wouldn't mind merging patches 4-6 into a single patch, just to > avoid risking unnecessary bisectability issues. Patches were split to make them smaller and more reviewable but I'm ok with merging them together > > Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> >
