Glauber Costa wrote:
Matt T. Yourst noted that we're currently having a dumb
race for no reason in paravirtual wall clock. This is due
to the use of a static variable to hold the counting.
This can race with multiple guests reading wallclock
at the same time, since the static variable value
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 02:42:20PM -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
Matt T. Yourst noted that we're currently having a dumb
race for no reason in paravirtual wall clock. This is due
to the use of a static variable to hold the counting.
This can race with multiple guests reading wallclock
at the
Matt T. Yourst noted that we're currently having a dumb
race for no reason in paravirtual wall clock. This is due
to the use of a static variable to hold the counting.
This can race with multiple guests reading wallclock
at the same time, since the static variable value would
then be accessible
Matt T. Yourst noted that we're currently having a dumb
race for no reason in paravirtual wall clock. This is due
to the use of a static variable to hold the counting.
This can race with multiple guests reading wallclock
at the same time, since the static variable value would
then be accessible
On Thursday 26 February 2009, Glauber Costa wrote:
@@ -548,15 +548,13 @@ static int do_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned
index, u64 *data)
static void kvm_write_wall_clock(struct kvm *kvm, gpa_t wall_clock)
{
- static int version;
+ int version = 1;
struct
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 08:50:26PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 26 February 2009, Glauber Costa wrote:
@@ -548,15 +548,13 @@ static int do_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned
index, u64 *data)
static void kvm_write_wall_clock(struct kvm *kvm, gpa_t wall_clock)
{
-
On Friday 27 February 2009, Glauber Costa wrote:
Doesn't this mean that kvm_write_guest now writes an uninitialized value
to the guest?
No. If you look closely, it's now initialized to 1.
Right, I didn't see that change at first.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
