On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 feel like I had a reason, but I don't remember what it was. --Andy
