On Thursday 10 July 2008 18:22:15 Yang, Sheng wrote: > On Wednesday 09 July 2008 23:03:19 Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 11:17 +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > > > So the question that is left before changing that is, if the > > > original author had something special in mind chosing cycles > > > here. I added Eric on CC for that. > > > > > > I wait with my resubmission of the patch series until all > > > architectures agree *hope* on using getnstimeofday() - after an > > > ack from all sides I would revise my patch series and submit > > > that changes alltogether. > > > > I got an email bounce from Eric the last time I tried to email > > him, so I'm not sure he's still with Intel. > > > > However, I don't think he had any special intention; I think he > > was just porting xentrace to KVM. > > Eric had completed his internship in Intel, so...
Drop Eric here... -- Thanks Yang, Sheng > > I like the term "timestamp" too. I think he used "cycles" only > because there is a function called get_cycles(). > > But instead of getnstimeofday(), I suggest using ktime_get() here. > It's little more precise than getnstimeofday(), and ktime_t is more > easily to be handled. And I think the overhead it brought can be > ignored too. > > -- > Thanks > Yang, Sheng > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
