On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:55:58AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 06:24:33PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > From: Gu Zheng
> >
> > In order to deal well with the kvm vcpus (which can not be removed without
> > any
> > protection), we do not close KVM vcpu fd, just record a
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 06:30:52PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 11/20/2015 11:54 PM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> >From: Gu Zheng
> >
> >In order to deal well with the kvm vcpus (which can not be removed without
> >any
> >protection), we do not close KVM vcpu fd, just record and mark it as s
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 06:24:33PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> From: Gu Zheng
>
> In order to deal well with the kvm vcpus (which can not be removed without any
> protection), we do not close KVM vcpu fd, just record and mark it as stopped
> into a list, so that we can reuse it for the appendin
On 11/20/2015 11:54 PM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
From: Gu Zheng
In order to deal well with the kvm vcpus (which can not be removed without any
protection), we do not close KVM vcpu fd, just record and mark it as stopped
into a list, so that we can reuse it for the appending cpu hot-add request if
p
From: Gu Zheng
In order to deal well with the kvm vcpus (which can not be removed without any
protection), we do not close KVM vcpu fd, just record and mark it as stopped
into a list, so that we can reuse it for the appending cpu hot-add request if
possible. It is also the approach that kvm guys
