On Wednesday 09 July 2008 23:03:19 Hollis Blanchard wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 11:17 +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > > So the question that is left before changing that is, if the > > original author had something special in mind chosing cycles > > here. I added Eric on CC for that. > > > > I wait with my resubmission of the patch series until all > > architectures agree *hope* on using getnstimeofday() - after an > > ack from all sides I would revise my patch series and submit that > > changes alltogether. > > I got an email bounce from Eric the last time I tried to email him, > so I'm not sure he's still with Intel. > > However, I don't think he had any special intention; I think he was > just porting xentrace to KVM. Eric had completed his internship in Intel, so... I like the term "timestamp" too. I think he used "cycles" only because there is a function called get_cycles(). But instead of getnstimeofday(), I suggest using ktime_get() here. It's little more precise than getnstimeofday(), and ktime_t is more easily to be handled. And I think the overhead it brought can be ignored too. -- Thanks Yang, Sheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
