On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 07:01:04PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 2020-07-11 11:04, Andrew Jones wrote: > > The first three patches in the series are fixes that come from testing > > and reviewing pvtime code while writing the QEMU support (I'll reply > > to this mail with a link to the QEMU patches after posting - which I'll > > do shortly). The last patch is only a convenience for userspace, and I > > wouldn't be heartbroken if it wasn't deemed worth it. The QEMU patches > > I'll be posting are currently written without the cap. However, if the > > cap is accepted, then I'll change the QEMU code to use it. > > > > Thanks, > > drew > > > > Andrew Jones (5): > > KVM: arm64: pvtime: steal-time is only supported when configured > > KVM: arm64: pvtime: Fix potential loss of stolen time > > KVM: arm64: pvtime: Fix stolen time accounting across migration > > KVM: Documentation minor fixups > > arm64/x86: KVM: Introduce steal-time cap > > > > Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst | 20 ++++++++++++++++---- > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 +- > > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 3 +++ > > arch/arm64/kvm/pvtime.c | 31 +++++++++++++++---------------- > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 3 +++ > > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > > include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 1 + > > 7 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > Hi Andrew, > > Sorry about the time it took to get to this series. No problem. > Although I had a number of comments, they are all easy to > address, and you will hopefully be able to respin it quickly I'll address all the comments and get it respun right away. > (assuming we agree that patch #1 is unnecessary). I'm not sure yet. I've suggested yet another interpretation of the spec and will see what you say about that. Thanks, drew _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
