Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 8/9] x86/rtc: replace paravirt_enabled() check with subarch check

2016-02-22 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:34:26AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 02/22/2016 05:27 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 07:07:56AM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h > >>b/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h > >>index

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 8/9] x86/rtc: replace paravirt_enabled() check with subarch check

2016-02-22 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
On 02/22/2016 05:27 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 07:07:56AM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h index 1ae89a2721d6..fe0d579b63e3 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h +++

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 8/9] x86/rtc: replace paravirt_enabled() check with subarch check

2016-02-22 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 07:07:56AM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h > index 1ae89a2721d6..fe0d579b63e3 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h > @@ -84,11 +84,14 @@ struct

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 8/9] x86/rtc: replace paravirt_enabled() check with subarch check

2016-02-21 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 03:48:41PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 02:22:12PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: > > On 19/02/16 14:08, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > The current check is a super long winded way of asking if this > > > is on lguest. The flags is used for legacy

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 8/9] x86/rtc: replace paravirt_enabled() check with subarch check

2016-02-19 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 02:22:12PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 19/02/16 14:08, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > The current check is a super long winded way of asking if this > > is on lguest. The flags is used for legacy features, this is > > What about Xen pv-domU? I wouldn't expect those to

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 8/9] x86/rtc: replace paravirt_enabled() check with subarch check

2016-02-19 Thread David Vrabel
On 19/02/16 13:08, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > The current check is a super long winded way of asking if this > is on lguest. The flags is used for legacy features, this is > likely inspired by the ACPI IA-PC boot architecture flags, where > as for RTC it annotates No CMOS real-time clock present.

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 8/9] x86/rtc: replace paravirt_enabled() check with subarch check

2016-02-19 Thread Juergen Gross
On 19/02/16 14:08, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > The current check is a super long winded way of asking if this > is on lguest. The flags is used for legacy features, this is What about Xen pv-domU? I wouldn't expect those to have PV_SUPPORTED_RTC set. Juergen > likely inspired by the ACPI IA-PC

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 8/9] x86/rtc: replace paravirt_enabled() check with subarch check

2016-02-19 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
The current check is a super long winded way of asking if this is on lguest. The flags is used for legacy features, this is likely inspired by the ACPI IA-PC boot architecture flags, where as for RTC it annotates No CMOS real-time clock present. I don't expect we will be implementing more legacy