On 08/07/2012 06:11 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 2 August 2012 10:14, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-07-26 16:35, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> This patch series removes all uses of kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()
>>> from architecture-independent code, by creating a set of more
>>> specific functions instead t
On 2 August 2012 10:14, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-07-26 16:35, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> This patch series removes all uses of kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()
>> from architecture-independent code, by creating a set of more
>> specific functions instead to test for the particular aspects
>> of behaviour t
On 2012-07-26 16:35, Peter Maydell wrote:
> This patch series removes all uses of kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()
> from architecture-independent code, by creating a set of more
> specific functions instead to test for the particular aspects
> of behaviour that the calling code is actually interested in.
>
On 2012-08-01 16:39, Peter Maydell wrote:
> ping?
Sorry, head is full with other stuff. Will try to have a final look today.
Jan
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
> On 26 July 2012 15:35, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> This patch series removes all uses of kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()
>> from architecture-independen
ping?
thanks
-- PMM
On 26 July 2012 15:35, Peter Maydell wrote:
> This patch series removes all uses of kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()
> from architecture-independent code, by creating a set of more
> specific functions instead to test for the particular aspects
> of behaviour that the calling code is
This patch series removes all uses of kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()
from architecture-independent code, by creating a set of more
specific functions instead to test for the particular aspects
of behaviour that the calling code is actually interested in.
The uses in x86-specific code could in theory be f
