On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 02:25:19PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:05:37 -0600 > Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 07/14/2016 10:54 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > s/opposit/opposite/ in the subject line, but it's already long. I wonder > > if you can go shorter, with: > > > > pc: enforce CPU add/remove in contiguous order > > > > > it will still allow us to use cpu_index as migration instance_id > > > since when CPUs are added contiguously (from the first to the last) > > > and removed in opposite order, cpu_index stays stable and it's > > > reproducable on destination side. > > > > s/reproducable/reproducible/ > Eduardo could you fix it up when applying or should I respin it?
I can fix it. -- Eduardo
