On 09/06/2016 19:12, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 09/06/2016 15:35, Roman Kagan wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:47:54PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> On 09/06/2016 14:43, Roman Kagan wrote: >>> Has it landed in any public tree? I'm unable to find any. There >>> appears to be another version of the patch on the list, so I'm confused. >> >> I'm about to push it to kvm/master. > > Sorry for being slow. I'm catching up. In its current form, I don't > like this patch. Please don't apply it.
Sure, I was talking about Minfei's patches, not this one. :) Of course I need ack for this one. > The problem is that this makes two significant changes at once: > > 1. Use the new version helpers. I like that change. > > 2. Use __pvclock_read_cycles. That should be separate, and it should > come with timing numbers in the changelog. __pvclock_read_cycles is pretty much the same as the code that is being inlined. Thus the only change is that __pvclock_read_cycles is called inside the loop rather than outside, but the loop really is expected to never roll so why make a copy in the first place? I'll split the patch anyway, thanks! Paolo
