> Am 10.02.2016 um 16:28 schrieb David Hildenbrand:
> > For x86, cpu models are realized by making x86_64-cpu an abstract class and
> > creating loads of new classes, e.g. host-x86_64-cpu or haswell-x86_64-cpu.
> >
> > How does 'device_add ' play together with the x86 cpu model
> > approach? And
> Changes from v2->v3:
>
> * Call cpu_remove_sync rather than cpu_remove().
> * Pull latest version of patches from pseries set (v6). Trivial change to
> "Reclaim VCPU objects" to fix checkpatch error.
> * Add object_unparent during s390_cpu_release to accomodate changes in
> Patch 4
Am 10.02.2016 um 16:28 schrieb David Hildenbrand:
> For x86, cpu models are realized by making x86_64-cpu an abstract class and
> creating loads of new classes, e.g. host-x86_64-cpu or haswell-x86_64-cpu.
>
> How does 'device_add ' play together with the x86 cpu model
> approach? And with cpu
On 01/27/2016 05:53 PM, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> Changes from v2->v3:
>
> * Call cpu_remove_sync rather than cpu_remove().
> * Pull latest version of patches from pseries set (v6). Trivial change to
> "Reclaim VCPU objects" to fix checkpatch error.
> * Add object_unparent during
Changes from v2->v3:
* Call cpu_remove_sync rather than cpu_remove().
* Pull latest version of patches from pseries set (v6). Trivial change to
"Reclaim VCPU objects" to fix checkpatch error.
* Add object_unparent during s390_cpu_release to accomodate changes in
Patch 4 "Reclaim VCPU
